[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: beta status

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 11:16:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:44:53AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > The problem with miboot is that there are 200 or so m68k instructions in the
> > > > boot sector, which have not been changed since over 10 years probably, and
> > > > probably nobody at appple even remembers them, and thus we are not shipping
> > > > miboot even in non-free, while at the same time distributing it from
> > > > people.debian.org.
> > > FWIW, I think that asserting that "we" are distributing miboot from
> > > people.debian.org is nothing more than an invitation for someone to ask you
> > > to remove the binaries.  But is there actually any reason why miboot can't
> > > be distributed in non-free?  If there is, then that reason also applies to
> > The reason why miboot is not being distributed as part of non-free is because
> > those few asm instructions, which are nothing more than rom mac function
> > calls, have no explicit distribution rights attached, but as no doubt apple
> > has tools in their os to create and distribute bootable floppies (well, back
> > in the days when they had floppies), i really doubt this is a problem.
> And yet you won't upload the package to non-free, presumably because you
> think it won't be accepted by the ftp-masters, but you will distribute it
> from a project box (people.debian.org), which exposes Debian to the same
> liability (if any)?  That sounds terribly irresponsible to me.  If you can't
> come to an agreement with the ftp-masters that these files are
> distributable, then you shouldn't be distributing them from p.d.o either.

So, you advice is to try to upload it ? 


Sven Luther

Reply to: