Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria above others > in importance. If you want this kind of distinction, I think a less > discriminatory way would be to flag (internally or on a central web > site somewhere) each package in non-free according to which parts of > DFSG it fails.
I think it would be more manageable to flag freedoms that the package still does provide, for example modified-noncommercial-redistribution unmodified-noncommercial-redistribution unmodified-commercial-redistribution all-freedoms-in-the-gfdl dfsg-freedom-of-all-runnable-programs dfsg-freedom-of-all-main-cpu-runnable-programs or preferrably some shorter names :-) That is, list reasons why somebody might want to *accept* the package on his machine (or his redistribution) rather than list reasons why somebody might wanto to *exclude* it. That way an overlooked tag would lead to failure on the side of caution, and new tags could be added to the system without retroactively reclassifying all packages in non-free. -- Henning Makholm "We will discuss your youth another time." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
