-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi,
On 05/01/16 08:15, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (2016-01-04 23:14:11) >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> Your second item has been brought up before with different >>> focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest >>> in splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware" vs. various other >>> non-free sub components. >> >> Another one that is worth mentioning here --- which I discussed in the >> context of non-free.org with Dafydd Harries and others --- is >> introducing a debtags facet to capture the reason why a package is in >> non-free. At least two hierarchies come to mind: 1) which point of DFSG >> is not respected, and 2) which one of the 4 freedoms are not granted. >> >> I've had on my TODO list proposing the relevant debtags facets since at >> least 2 years, but never found the time to actually do that. This is a >> very actionable item: it is enough to follow the procedure for proposing >> a new debtags. (Procedure that I cannot find right now, but IIRC it >> includes coming up with a list of tag names + a list of at least N >> packages, with N relatively low, that are already in the archive and >> that would carry each tag.) > > while I would welcome this sort of information being captured using debtags, > this would not help me if I wanted to tell apt which packages are okay for me > and which ones are not because apt cannot set pin priorities according to a > package's debtags, right? > > Also, can the reason why something is in non-free not be captured by increased > and a more structured use of DEP-5 (machine-readable debian/copyright)? > > Certainly I'd welcome support of apt for both: debtags *and* licenses in > debian/copyright :) > > My own motivation to have better control over non-free is my package > ldraw-parts which is released under the "Creative Commons Attribution Licence > version 2.0" and thus non-free. I can imagine that more people than just me > would find that license acceptable enough. Are you suggesting some kind of scale ? Jerome > > Thanks! > > cheers, josch > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWi2/7AAoJEIC/w4IMSybj5lMH/i9u8R5lhuhLmTubJ1REFNZg Pb+Cg6wNlBSIM/Za3lS5LzcePxZae/7g8ZLf6B/7VYHPPJQheczsX6YfRoa5as1C 47ArS6uR8sOdFOhvNOmR/hWKW2o9RE+3kLnlvz0I0qnc25ty7cP31w8G04W7yQCO +fM/4XcW3MI+wtZpwZFrupm1DCHUpVpcwHLdrWJ7Bn0wmwHOWW8N7DgV9RsnBETT FnMOAN+8f/DyOQviJPMuKRS2xDcbL0eFaaWrfdq909jdO7JJLHDsEdYYrmc5tHiH Ajdg04jmA8XoZVzE1JYgL0LL56Y8r50jDqsJ9p7p4tPJRoLAoeT6ObEVXJ3Whh8= =yNg4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
