Re: Extended descriptions of non-free/non-US packages.
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: Personally, I think this would clutter the package descriptions to little benefit. A much more appropriate place IMO is /usr/share/package/copyright. The whole benefit of this proposal is so that you can know this information BEFORE you decide to install the package, since it determines whether I install the package. - if it is patent encumbered, I want to know if it applies to me before downloading - if it is non-free, I want to know whether I consider the license acceptable before downloading - etc. etc. However, even if it is not done, it would still be useful to have this specific information in /usr/share/doc or wherever. In particular, this information being readily available would likely prevent people asking specifically why X was in non-free, etc. -- Matthew Tuck: Software Developer All-Round Nice Guy My experience is that in general, if there's jobs programming in it, it's not worth programming in. Ultra Programming Language Project: http://www.box.net.au/~matty/ultra/
Extended descriptions of non-free/non-US packages.
This message may or may not be pertinent in future given the uncertain status of both non-free and non-US, but here goes anyway ... When I see a package that's in non-free or non-US I often wonder exactly why it's there. It would be really nice if every package explained why it was where it was. And for this to be required by policy if such a thing was appropriate. In detail, I want this at the bottom of every package description in non-free/non-US: - if it's in non-US, explain what parts of the software use crypto, since it's not always obvious. - if it's in non-free for patent reasons, give the patent numbers and the locations in which the patents are held. If it is DFSG compliant, explain this. Explain which parts of the software embody the patents. - if it's in non-free for DFSG non-compliance, explain which points of the DFSG are violated and specifically why not. Is this the best list? Should I take this to policy/devel? If there is agreement that this is a good idea where should I take it from here? -- Matthew Tuck: Software Developer All-Round Nice Guy My experience is that in general, if there's jobs programming in it, it's not worth programming in. Ultra Programming Language Project: http://www.box.net.au/~matty/ultra/
Re: Extended descriptions of non-free/non-US packages.
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 01:12:17 +0930, Matthew Tuck wrote: In detail, I want this at the bottom of every package description in non-free/non-US: - if it's in non-US, explain what parts of the software use crypto, since it's not always obvious. - if it's in non-free for patent reasons, give the patent numbers and the locations in which the patents are held. If it is DFSG compliant, explain this. Explain which parts of the software embody the patents. Personally, I think this would clutter the package descriptions to little benefit. A much more appropriate place IMO is /usr/share/package/copyright. Ray -- RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may not be a better one than the one the blocks live in but it'll be a sight more vivid. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
