On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:59:44PM +0100, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote: > I have attached LICENSE to this post - hope nobody minds, it's only 3.6kb. I > really need some input on this - would it be against the DFSG? I wouldn't > think so, only the long description should contain the license, and > README.Debian should probably contain a notice. But should it go in non-free? > Or is it totally against the DFSG?
What do you mean "totally against the DFSG"? If it's in non-free, it's against the DFSG. > I am quite serious about this. In case that wasn't clear, you may not > do the following things with FilterProxy: > Remove naughty words > Remove pornography > Remove "harmful ideas" in any form > Enforce access policies. > *UNLESS* you have the express knowledge and consent of the person whose > web content is being filtered. Said person must know exactly what is > being filtered. This is just so that unscrupulous individuals don't > install FilterProxy as a netnanny-type filtering system, and force their > views on others using it. It's been said on debian-devel, but I'll say it again: non-free. This goes against the fields of endavour clause; it's not a matter of whether we approve of the use or not. (IMO, it sucks; if you want to remove pornongraphy from stuff coming into your system, you should be able to, and your kids or employees can deal.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
