On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line > without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in > non-free had > > Non-DFSG: 3 > > and a tool that parsed that displayed > > This package is non-free because > - it does not allow modifications and distribution of modified source.
you are missing the point. this "Non-DFSG:" field is *NOT* intended to describe why a package fails a particular clause, it is intended solely to *list* which clause(s) it fails. nothing more, nothing less. this is useful in itself. it is not intended to be perfect, or to solve all problems. it is intended to provide a quick and dirty way of tabulating license problems in non-free. it also has the advantage of being factual. a license either satisfies a particular DFSG clause, or it does not. a human readable summary of what is wrong with the license should *ALSO* exist, perhaps as has been suggested in a separate file called Debian.non-free or similar. > Or imagine a license that was all fine and dandy except it contained a "you > must monitor my website" clause. TTBOMK all debian-legal regulars agree that > we do not consider that free, but which clause of the DFSG would we point to > here? The best we could do would be to put > > Non-DFSG: 1, 2, 3, 7 that works (it is true, after all), or it may be better to use a misc category such as "Non-DFSG: other". craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
