>>>>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And I think that that statement has enough truth to it that
Raul> even if we retain non-free [for example, if my proposal wins
Raul> on the upcoming ballot], we should seriously consider
Raul> updating policy to incorporate something like it in all
Raul> package descriptions in non-free. [And, for contrib,
Raul> something similar but about "the software which must be
Raul> installed to properly use this software" instead of simply
Raul> "this software".]
As a technical matter, I'd rather modify tools to infer this
information from the section field in the archive and to make it
available to users than to insert text in all descriptions. Here are
some reasons why:
First, users who are familiar with the issues can more easily remove
clutter that they well understand and get the information they need
to do their jobs.
Secondly, revising the statement to be more accurate and to be easier
to understand is easier if it can be revised in one place rather
than in all package descriptions.
Finally, if the information is inserted by the tool rather than by the
maintainer, then it can be presented in the appropriate manner for
that tool. I imagine some graphical tool with a sufficiently
compelling non-free icon that catches users attention when they first
encounter it and serves as a reminder of the distribution problems of
non-free software.
