Package suggests other package unavailable in PureOS, and known to be available elsewhere but only somehow nonfree.
FSF guidelines for systems forbids to "steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so."
Really the package suggests a non-existent package which is not an issue.
Some package exist outside of PureOS which happen to contain non-free code, but the relevant issue here is whether PureOS is encouraging the use of non-free code which is not the case.
Revert to track only freedom issue (not the related issue of it not being a freedom issue after all).
Revert to track only freedom issue (not the related issue of it not being a freedom issue after all).
Ah: Dropping the fork was done long ago in T330.
audex does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
foo2zjs does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
engrampa does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
doublecmd does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
clamav does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
When addressed, this issue should be flaged as "invalid" (not "resolved").
q4wine does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
Reopening but lowering to low priority: Package is currently fixed but likely to be dropped (see T330) and may then reappear and if so need fix reapplied.
Status "invalid" more accurate than "closed".
Possibly libunrar0 is nonfree in some other universe (or in ancient times?), but it is non-existent in PureOS as well as (contemporary at least) Debian.