All Projects

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/libnoise 1.0.0-4
    A portable, open-source, coherent noise-generating library for C++

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A portable, free-software, coherent noise-generating library for C++

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/libofa 0.9.3-6
    An open-source audio fingerprint by MusicIP

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free-software audio fingerprint by MusicIP

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/libomxil-bellagio 0.9.3-1
    An opensource implementation of the OpenMAX Integration Layer API

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software implementation of the OpenMAX Integration Layer API

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/libopenshot 0.1.4-1
    A high quality, open-source video editing, animation, and playback library for C++, Python, and Ruby.

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A high quality, free-software video editing, animation, and playback library for C++, Python, and Ruby.

Description:

The description of the package need to be changed to accommodate:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it lumps together licenses that have important differences. For instance, the original BSD license with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU General Public License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL.

To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in question and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”

community/libsmf 1.3-5
    A BSD-licensed C library for handling SMF ("*.mid") files.

Description:

The description of the package need to be changed to accommodate:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

extra/libspnav 0.2.3-1 [installed]
    Alternative to the proprietary 3Dconnexion device driver and SDK for their 3D input devices

This package contains vague terminology “Alternative”:

extra/libspnav 0.2.3-1
    Alternative to the proprietary 3Dconnexion device driver and SDK for their 3D input devices

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Alternative”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Alternative”.

eg.

Replacement to the proprietary 3Dconnexion device driver and SDK for their 3D input devices

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/libupnp 1.6.21-1
    Portable Open Source UPnP Development Kit

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Portable Free Software UPnP Development Kit

extra/libva 1.8.1-1 [installed]
     Video Acceleration (VA) API for Linux

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

Description is referring to operating system, and not to the kernel itself (Linux). It shall be amended.

I am not sure on this one.

Description:

community/linssid 2.7-4
     Graphical wireless scanner for Linux

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/love08 0.8.0-2
    An open-source 2D game engine which uses the versatile Lua scripting language to create dynamic gaming experiences

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software 2D game engine which uses the versatile Lua scripting language to create dynamic gaming experiences

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/love 0.10.2-1 [installed]
    An open-source 2D game engine which uses the versatile Lua scripting language to create dynamic gaming experiences

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free-software 2D game engine which uses the versatile Lua scripting language to create dynamic gaming experiences

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/lxlauncher-gtk3 0.2.5-2 (lxde-gtk3)
    Open source clone of the Asus launcher for EeePC (GTK+ 3 version)

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Free software clone of the Asus launcher for EeePC (GTK+ 3 version)

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/lxlauncher 0.2.5-2 (lxde)
    Open source clone of the Asus launcher for EeePC

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Free software clone of the Asus launcher for EeePC

Description:

community/man-pages-de 1.22-1
     German Linux man pages

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

Description:

community/man-pages-ru 4.08_2329_2272_20170321-2
     Russian Linux man pages

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

Description:

community/man-pages-zh_cn 1.6.3.1-1
     Simplified Chinese Linux man pages

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

Description:

community/man-pages-zh_tw 1.6.3.1-1
     Traditional Chinese Linux man pages

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/manaplus 1.7.4.15-1
    Free OpenSource 2D MMORPG client for Evol Online, The mana world and similar servers

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Free Software 2D MMORPG client for Evol Online, The mana world and similar servers

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/mathjax 2.7.1-1
    An open source JavaScript display engine for mathematics that works in all modern browsers

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software JavaScript display engine for mathematics that works in all modern browsers

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/mediaproxy 2.6.1-2
    Open-source media proxy for OpenSER

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Free-software media proxy for OpenSER

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/metasploit 4.13.22-1
    Advanced open-source platform for developing, testing, and using exploit code

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Advanced free-software platform for developing, testing, and using exploit code

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/mixxx 2.0.0-8
    Free, open source software for digital DJ'ing.

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Free software for digital DJ'ing.

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/mlt-python-bindings 6.4.1-6
    An open source multimedia framework

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software multimedia framework

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/mlt 6.4.1-6
    An open source multimedia framework

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software multimedia framework

Description:
needs OpenRC init script

Additional info:
* mongodb-3.4.3-1

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/mongodb 3.4.3-1
    A high-performance, open source, schema-free document-oriented database

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A high-performance, free software, schema-free document-oriented database

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/mosquitto 1.4.11-5
    An Open Source MQTT v3.1/v3.1.1 Broker

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A Free Software MQTT v3.1/v3.1.1 Broker

Description:

The description of the package need to be changed to accommodate:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

extra/mp3wrap 0.5-4
     Tool for wrapping mp3 files. A free independent alternative to AlbumWrap

Description is pointing to proprietary software, it should not, it shall be changed.

It is not alternative to proprietary, and description shall be changed. It gives some kind of legitimacy to proprietary software.

This package contains vague terminology “Vendor”:

community/ndiswrapper-dkms 1.60.20160717-1
    Module for NDIS (Windows Network Drivers) drivers supplied by vendors.Use with DKMS

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Vendor”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Vendor

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Vendor”.

eg.

Module for NDIS (Windows Network Drivers) drivers.Use with DKMS

Description:

community/nmon 16g-1
     AIX & Linux Performance Monitoring tool

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

Description:

community/notepadqq 1.0.1-1
     Notepad++-like text editor for Linux

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

extra/nss_ldap 265-6
     The nss_ldap module provides the means for Linux and Solaris workstations to resolve the ent ities defined in RFC 2307 from LDAP directories.

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

Description is referring to operating system, and not to the kernel itself (Linux). It shall be amended.

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/obs-studio 18.0.2-1
    Free, open source software for live streaming and recording

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Free software for live streaming and recording

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/ode 0.14-1
    An open source, high performance library for simulating rigid body dynamics

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software, high performance library for simulating rigid body dynamics

Description:

community/open-isns 0.97-3
     iSNS server and client for Linux

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

my recommended fix, make it reflect the applications that are actually installed on the system after removing non-free software support.

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/opencore-amr 0.1.5-1
    Open source implementation of the Adaptive Multi Rate (AMR) speech codec

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

extra/opencore-amr 0.1.5-1
    Free software implementation of the Adaptive Multi Rate (AMR) speech codec

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/opendkim 2.10.3-4
    An open source implementation of the DKIM sender authentication system. Based on a fork of dkim-milter.

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software implementation of the DKIM sender authentication system. Based on a fork of dkim-milter.

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/opendmarc 1.3.2-1
    Free open source software implementation of the DMARC specification

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

Free software implementation of the DMARC specification

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/openjpeg2 2.1.2-2
    An open source JPEG 2000 codec, version 2.1.2

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software JPEG 2000 codec, version 2.1.2

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

extra/openjpeg 1.5.2-1
    An open source JPEG 2000 codec

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free software JPEG 2000 codec

Description:

The description of the package need to be changed to accommodate:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

To refer to published works as “assets”, or “digital assets”, is even worse than calling them “content” — it presumes they have no value to society except commercial value.

community/openmw 0.41.0-3.hyperbola1
    A libre engine reimplementation for Morrowind-based role-playing games, without wizard installation support to install nonfree assets from Morrowind to run Morrowind

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/openra 20170421-1
    An open-source implementation of the Red Alert engine using .NET/Mono and OpenGL

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A free-software implementation of the Red Alert engine using .NET/Mono and OpenGL

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/openscenegraph 3.4.0-5
    An Open Source, high performance real-time graphics toolkit

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A Free Software, high performance real-time graphics toolkit

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/opensips 2.2.3-1
    An Open Source SIP Server able to act as a SIP proxy, registrar, location server, redirect server ...

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A Free Software SIP Server able to act as a SIP proxy, registrar, location server, redirect server ...

Description:

community/openstreetmap-map-icons-svn 31588-1 [installed]
    A set of public domain licensed map icons for general OSM use

It is questionable if it is “Licensed” or dedicated.

See the file:
/usr/share/licenses/openstreetmap-map-icons/svg-twotone/LICENSE.txt

it does not matter if the file is named “LICENSE”, it could be also named anyhow else.

There must be reason why the organization Creative Commons is not using the word “License” in that text, and that is why I propose to simply say in description:

    A set of public domain map icons for general OSM use

This package contains vague terminology “Open Source”:

community/opensubdiv 3.1.1-1 [installed]
    An Open-Source subdivision surface library

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Open Source”, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Open Source”.

eg.

A Free Software subdivision surface library

This package contains vague terminology “Linux”:

community/oprofile 1.1.0-3
    System-wide profiler for Linux systems

According to:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

We shall avoid vague terminology such as “Linux” as operating system, please see here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux

It would be good example to set to have proper description of packages without using “Linux” as operating system.

eg.

System-wide profiler for GNU/Linux systems

Description:

community/oprofile 1.1.0-3
     System-wide profiler for Linux systems

See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux