On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > So, either we should only mark free software with the as-is label. > Then it might help if the text was clarified as in the patch below. > > Or we continue marking random non-free stuff with as-is. Then we > should IMHO remove as-is from our free license groups, create a > licenses/HPND file (text as in [1]), and move the free packages to it.
Well, I can see legal problems any time you take a thousand things that all have a bunch of non-identical, informal licenses and treat them as the same. However, I don't think it is practical to do otherwise. How about having an as-is-free and an as-is-nonfree. The easier thing on maintainers is to make one of those just "as-is," and if we want to make sure we check them all the better thing is to not do that. However, making a new as-is-free and treating anything as-is as not free is probably good enough. I don't think it is wise to do the reverse, even though that involves the least amount of work. Rich
