On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > > There's lots of software in non-free that is freely > > distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as > > limitations on commercial use. Non- free things should go in > > non-free, even if there's a lack of free equivalents. > I agree that they should not stay in main, but I don't think > that freely distributable documents should be mixed with stuff > which is not allowed to be distributed commercially, or which > according to its license, cannot be exported to Iraq. Why should Debian distinguish between different shades of non-freeness? Are you aware that there is much software already in non-free which is freely redistributable but non-modifiable? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpPSci8rkzHJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature