[Debtags-devel] New categorization proposal

[Václav Jůza]

Hi,

Dne út 15. listopadu 2005 19:37 Torsten Marek napsal(a):
> Václav Juza schrieb:
> > Hi,
> > there are many types of packages in the debian non-free and contrib
> > sections, from java packages or GFDL documentation to such as rar or
> > flashplugin, where one can almost nothing. And I think this is a good
> > task for debtags to categorize it, and in the future, maybe even some
> > categorization of free packages.
> >
> > So I include my proposal of vocabulary extension and an example of how
> > some packages would be tagged. I tested these files under
> > /etc/debtags/license and added it to /etc/debtags/sources.list and then
> > did debtags update.
> >
> > As I am not lawyer and I am debtags-newbie, so please don't beat me, if i
> > am wrong in anything :-)
>
> Hi Vaclav,
> Thanks for yor work and welcome to Debtags!
>
> I think it would be more helpful if you include your tags/facets as text
> into your email, makes it easier to check.
ok
> Basically, I think that having such information is good, but it's not
> really license. This should better be license::gpl, license::bsd,
> license::proprietary etc and could be automatically inferred by reading the
> debian/copyright. The tags you have would better be under a facet like
> "freedom" (maybe licens*ing*), or maybe, because it mainly talks about
> restrictions (and the default is DFSG-free), "restriction".
ok, renamed to "restriction" (I formerly thought that it could be used even
for another aspects in the future)
> Right now, it looks a bit overwhelming to me, but that's more because of
> the bewildering nature of (non-free) software licensing.
I formerly thought about less categories (no no-*), but when I was giving
tags to the example packages, I decided, that there is far different, when
package can be distributed, but only free of charge, and when the package
can not be redistributable at all.
> Do you care for asking our lawyers at debian-legal about it?
I have not asked them yet. Actually I don't know, what to ask them exactly 
about. Simply, what they think about it?


Here there are the proposed facets/tags
Vocabulary:--------------
Facet: restriction
Description: license restriction (and permission) categorization
Status: draft

Tag: restriction::nonfree-use
Description: licensing restricts running/reading/...
 (non-commercional use only,
 fees, compulsory registrations, time-limited, conditions about other software
 ...)

Tag: restriction::no-distribution
Description: The binaries are not redistributable
 Either only source is redistributable (pine), or nothing is redistributable
 without special permission (opera), or the package downloads
 non-redistributable content from the internet (flashplugin-nonfree).

Tag: restriction::nonfree-distribution
Description: The package restricts redistribution
 for example prohibits any fees for it or change of the distribution
 file format. Applies even for package downloading content from the internet,
 if the content downloaded from the internet may be redistributable in
 certain conditions (msttcorefonts).

Tag: restriction::no-source
Description: Binary-only package

Tag: restriction::nonfree-source
Description: There are strong restrictions about using the source
 for example studying of how it works is not allowed.

Tag: restriction::nonfree-modifications
Description: Non-dfsg restrictions of modified and derived work.
 Use this tag where there is source code; where there is no or
 non-free source code, modifications are usually restricted as well.

Tag: restriction::nonfree-depend
Description: Is dfsg-free, but the use requires non-free software
 The package itself is otherwise free (use, distribution, studying,
 modifying). Compiling may require non-free software as well.
 Requiring non-free software does not mean here requiring free software,
 which requires non-free software

Tag: restriction::nonfree-compile
Description: Is dfsg-free, but building the package requires non-free 
software.
 The package is otherwise free (use, distribution, studying,
 modifying), and running does not require any non-free software.

example packages(tag-coll):---------------------------
opera: restriction::nonfree-use, restriction::no-distribution, 
restriction::no-source
rar: restriction::nonfree-use, restriction::nonfree-distribution, 
restriction::no-source
unrar: restriction::nonfree-distribution, restriction::nonfree-source
msttcorefonts: restriction::nonfree-use, restriction::nonfree-distribution, 
restriction::no-source
flashplugin-nonfree: restriction::nonfree-use, restriction::no-distribution, 
restriction::no-source
openoffice.org-help-cs: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-en-us: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-de: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-es: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-fr: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-it: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-ja: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-ko: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-pt-br: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-sv: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-zh-cn: restriction::nonfree-build
openoffice.org-help-zh-tw: restriction::nonfree-build
dosemu-freedos: restriction::nonfree-build
dosemu:
autoconf-doc: restriction::nonfree-modifications
phpdoc: restriction::nonfree-modifications
libmotif3: restriction::nonfree-use
latex2html: restriction::nonfree-distribution, 
restriction::nonfree-modifications
gnu-standards: restriction::nonfree-modifications
gs-afpl: restriction::nonfree-distribution
pine: restriction::no-distribution, restriction::nonfree-modifications

Vaclav