| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, either we should only mark free software with the as-is label. |
| 3 |
> Then it might help if the text was clarified as in the patch below. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Or we continue marking random non-free stuff with as-is. Then we |
| 6 |
> should IMHO remove as-is from our free license groups, create a |
| 7 |
> licenses/HPND file (text as in [1]), and move the free packages to it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, I can see legal problems any time you take a thousand things |
| 10 |
that all have a bunch of non-identical, informal licenses and treat |
| 11 |
them as the same. However, I don't think it is practical to do |
| 12 |
otherwise. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
How about having an as-is-free and an as-is-nonfree. The easier thing |
| 15 |
on maintainers is to make one of those just "as-is," and if we want to |
| 16 |
make sure we check them all the better thing is to not do that. |
| 17 |
However, making a new as-is-free and treating anything as-is as not |
| 18 |
free is probably good enough. I don't think it is wise to do the |
| 19 |
reverse, even though that involves the least amount of work. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives