On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:08:50PM +0000, John Lines wrote: > > > It's probably in non-free, instead of not being distributed at all, > > > by mistake. > > > > Needs verifying. The description says: "Due to license considerations, > > this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto your > > system. After installation, you will have to run build-mmix to build > > the binary package and install it." This doesn't sound like a package > > whose maintainer has been careless about copyright. > > > > It might be a good idea to have a file with a standard name, such as > README.non-DFSG which went with files in non-free. This could have a free-form > section for Debian comments on, for example, why the package can be > distributed > at all (if this might seem not to be allowed from a casual reading of the > copyright file), or why it is in non-free. > > There could also be a set of tags, able to be machine parsed, which say, for > example which sections of the DFSG caused the package to be in non-free, or > classes or categories similar to those suggested by MJ Ray - such as > "no commercial", "no modification", "patent", "compatibility", "notification" > and "other" > > Putting this information into a separate file would reserve the copyright file > for the upstream information, and make it clear which was Debian commentary > on the legal position, saving README.Debian for technical packaging issues. > > The README.non-DFSG could also contain pointers to free alternatives if they > exist.
What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ? Friendly, Sven Luther
