Re: stability of non-free?
Philippe Troin writes:
->
-> On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 13:38:54 +0100 Christian Schwarz
-> (schwarz@monet.m.isar.de) wrote:
->
-> > On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, joost witteveen wrote:
[ a) non-free directories under stable and unstable ]
-> > But if we consider non-free stuff _NOT_ as part of the Debian system, we
-> > should propable do the following:
[ b) non-free directory with stable/unstable directories ]
-> I think that non-free is definitely part of the Debian system, and
-> favors option 1 (free/non-free inside the debian stable/unstable hierarchy).
-> What do you think ?
Putting non-free under stable and unstable would make things thoat
much more non-obvious for CD makers, it would seem, as well as
semi-officially sanctioning the non-free stuff, which is against the
Debian philosophy. I believe I remember reading a blurb somewhere
that while we recognize the need for the non-free stuff to get the job
done, we as an organization don't agree with the licensing sceme, and
therefore, it's there for the convenience of Debian users.
-Larry
--
Larry Daffner | Linux: Unleash the workstation in your PC!
vizzie@airmail.net / http://web2.airmail.net/vizzie/
The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful
theory by an ugly fact. --Thomas Henry Huxley
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: