[Debtags-devel] Re: Debtags facet for classification non-free packages

[Václav Jůza]

2005-11-24 15:20 MJ Ray wrote:
> vaclavjuza at seznam.cz (quoting me without attribution)
Sorry, because I was not really in CC and the response through debtags-devel 
was delayed, I copied the response from web archive and forgot.
> > >>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/2005-November/00
> > >>1029.html
> > >
> > >This is better, but misses quite a few common cases. OTTOMH, there are
> > >also restrictions on distributing adapted versions,
> >
> > I think this could be marked by ...:change
>
> Why? It's not a restriction on changing or distribution alone.
My original thought was: There would be not many tags. By changing in my 
original proposal, I thought anything concerning distributed derived 
products, because private changes is common use of source code (where it is 
available), like studying it.
But if there would be two set of tags, one for private changes (:privacy) and 
one for distributed derived works, it mays be distinguished.

> > >making private changes,
> >
> > In my original proposal it would be marked by no-source,
> > in this probably with :change. Yes, it should be mentioned in
> > description.
>
> I suggest a :privacy marking.
ok, good idea. What does Enrice Zini or the other think?


> [...]
>
> > >I'm disappointed that so much effort is being made to encourage use
> > >of non-free.
> >
> > I understand this opinion, but for example GFDL documentation was
> > \"free enough\" a couple of months ago [...]
>
> It's been widely seen as non-free for ages. There was just a delay in
> it being fixed, as some sort of compromise between views.
>
> > Everyone can have his/her own opinion, what is free enough for him/her.
>
> So why are you arguing against marking privacy restrictions? I think
> that's a class which some people would accept even if unhappy with
> other use restrictions.
I am not arguing, I only told, how the mentioned cases could be marked
with proposed tags. When proposing, I also saw the other side of the problem,
that it may be a little problem, if there could be many tags in parallel for 
the same package.
This is the reason, why this was posted to debian-legal, so that tags 
like :privacy can be proposed.

Thanks