Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
> >
> > On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated
> > packages you have mut.
> >
> > On the other hand, it's a development project, not a distribution of
> > stuff available from elsewhere.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:29:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You appear to be grasping.
And here I thought I was answering a specific question.
> What critera must another project possess
> for you to regard it as "comparable to non-free"?
>
> What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind?
Me?
In my case, a project would be "comparable to non-free", if there's a
reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository
in the same fashion as they currently use non-free.
> You need to identify traits other than "something maintained by Debian",
> else you're begging the question.
Ok, trivial. Long since done.
--
Raul
Reply to: