On Thursday 08 March 2001 23:16, David Starner wrote: > > 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.
Yep, but I was thinking more in the lines of a shrink-wrap license, as somebody suggested. Or rather, this was what I was worried about. This is a very special clause, so I wanted to make sure that if I included it in the long description, that would be okay. Personally, I'm a little dubious as to the legality - anybody can install a package from Debian's main-archive, knowing the backgorund of the license somewhat, but this.. well, you'd pretty easy break the license by doing an apt-get install filterproxy, and then filtering users contents. The only solution that really fits is a yes/no question in a preinst script, but that's ugly. However, if that's the way, that's the way... > 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.) Well, it's not just about removing ads. It can do that, as well, but it'll also allow you to use Transfer-Enconding (gzip, et al), de-animate gifs, and such. But no relevance to the thread, so I'll just shut up :) Rgds Kenneth
