On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:57:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria above others > > in importance. If you want this kind of distinction, I think a less > > discriminatory way would be to flag (internally or on a central web > > site somewhere) each package in non-free according to which parts of > > DFSG it fails. > > I think it would be more manageable to flag freedoms that the package > still does provide, for example > > modified-noncommercial-redistribution > unmodified-noncommercial-redistribution > unmodified-commercial-redistribution > all-freedoms-in-the-gfdl > dfsg-freedom-of-all-runnable-programs > dfsg-freedom-of-all-main-cpu-runnable-programs
While this is being worked on, it might be useful to add a tag for whether packages can be autobuilt, and perhaps (as non-US is going away soon, and maybe we could do crypto-in-non-free), a tag for whether a package complies with BXA export regs. Ian. -- Ian Beckwith - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://nessie.mcc.ac.uk/~ianb/ GPG fingerprint: AF6C C0F1 1E74 424B BCD5 4814 40EC C154 A8BA C1EA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
