[Dev] [Voting] Package freedom guidelines draft two

[Nicolás Reynolds]

Michał Masłowski <mtjm at mtjm.eu> writes:

> A. == License rules for source and binary packages ==
>
> All nontrivial non-license works should be
> [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or
> [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works] unless they
> are correctly GNU FDL-licensed documentation ("correctly" implies that
> e.g. a manual that consists only of invariant sections isn't accepted)
> or GNU packages (with e.g. nonmodifiable works of opinion).

are there other packages where works of opinion are included?

> G. == Naming of replacement packages ==
>
> 1. If we change upstream "a" to "b", change "a" to "b" in the name.
> 2. If the resulting package cannot be used instead of the original
>    package, change its name so users will know this and other packages
>    won't use it.
>
> Many existing replacement packages have different names, they should
> not be changed just for this rule.

i don't understand g

-- 
.oO)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20130108/22b48383/attachment.sig>