On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license. i looked quickly at each one > > to try to find out why it had been classified as non-free. in some cases, > > that means i may not have noted down all the reasons why a particular > > package is non-free. > > Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against non-free > packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the copyright > file with an explanation as to why this is in non-free?
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like: Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5 to indicate clauses 1, 3, and 5 of the DFSG. > Or is this commonly explained in README.Debian or elsewhere? Craig, did > you see a lot of package where this is perhaps already the case? i didn't look at README.Debian. the only file i looked at was 'copyright'. there were only a few packages where the copyright file had a summary of why it was in non-free. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
