On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:22:31PM +0100, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote: > 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.
If it's in non-free, it just means that its license disagrees with at least ONE element of the DFSG, not necessarily all. > 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 :) I suppose the obvious question to ask is have you asked the author(s) for clarification? -- Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
