[Debtags-devel] "license" facet?

Enrico Zini enrico@enricozini.org
Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:19:04 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:06:34PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:

> I like the idea of only offering the most known licenses and have
> another tag as DFSG free. Of course there would be many packages being
> license::other but does that hurt so much? Most people would be
> interested in a) one of the main licenses or b) packages which offer
> them some defined kind of freedom (like DFSG free).
> Especially for b) there might be other degrees of freedom that might be
> interesting like "free without having to publish my source" (e.g. LGPL)
> but this is hard to accomplish even though one could try.=20

Right.  So we seem to agree on having a limited set of common licenses
as categories in the facet.

I'm not convinced of license::other, and I'd probably prefer not to tag
packages along that facet.  We could do however license::other-dfsg
and license::other-nonfree.

> >  - Make some tags read-only in the packagebrowser (its sources are in
> >    svn://svn.debian.org/debtags/central-database/trunk and we can help
> >    Erich with some patches).
> >    We need ways of updating the data, though: maybe restrict writing to
> >    patches sent my a mail signed by a DD?  I could implement sending
> >    signed mails in debtags and debtags-edit, if needed.
> This would be generally a good idea for difficult tags, and perhaps tags
> which are adopted (e.g. uitoolkit::kde by the KDE Team).

Right.  So we have three use cases for this already:

 - adopted tags
 - CDD-specific tags
 - tags needing a special editing process (such as 'license::' if we
   decide that it needs to be added by a DD only)

Erich: how hard would it be to implement this in the server?  And what
happens if I start sending you signed e-mails with the patch attached?

> >    License::Artistic
> >    License::BSD
> >    License::GPL
> >    License::LGPL
> I would recommend this because different versions of *GPL* are similar
> in spirit.

Right.  This, together with the "data are provided as-is", is a nice way
to provide a useful search tool while not pretending to give exact legal

> > Also, should we involve debian-legal@lists.debian.org in the discussion?
> This seems to make sense to me.

Good.  I sent them a call: let's see if someone replies.



GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)