Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:41:20PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:18:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Or if it is clear that upstream is not going to change, have the
> > possibility to remove it from our archive in retaliation (as is the
> > case with the adobe package Branden mentioned a few weeks ago).
> Dude, the adobe packages got removed because of a security hole, not
> because of some retaliation or some being-obsolute scheme. At least,
No, i was not speaking about acrobat reader, but about the other package
whose name i forgot, and which Branden mentioned here.