Talk:Blacklist

Hello everyone,

After reading some wiki pages related to FSDG and your-freedom, as well as downloading the blacklist repo, I didn't find a formal correlation between FSDG and the short description field in the blacklist. The following is taken from the README file:

[...]

package[:libre-replacement-package-name][:short description] [] is optional

[...]

To make reporting issues to gnu-linux-libre easier, we should explain
in the description if the package is blacklisted due to an upstream FSDG
issue, problem introduced by Arch (e.g. not including required license
text, adding optional dependency on a nonfree package), or just
branding, dependency or non-freedom-related issues which don't need
reporting to other distros.

[...]

Even if trivial, I guess that having formal criterias would make (un)blacklisting clearer and avoid uncertaties.

From what I can understand:

[nonfree] == non-free license || license missing || license header missing from \
at least one source code file.
[uses-nonfree] == free, but depends on at least one non free component.
[semifree] == free, but enables the use of non free sw.
[branding] == free, but non free artwork
[technical] == free, but package not build from source || build using proprietary sw \
|| adapted for non free sw.

Do you think adding something like this in the wiki and/or in the blacklist's README is a good idea?