Re: Packages to be removed from hamm
On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 09:59:24PM +0000, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 10:22:30AM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> > ircii 21683 ircii: ircii is non-free!  (Bernd Eckenfels <firstname.lastname@example.org>)
> > tkirc depends on ircii
> > In addition to these two packages, bitchx and epic should also be
> > removed.
> Afaik, the ircII issue has not been resolved yet. Removing all of the major
> ircII-based clients is crippling hamm. Wait for resolution of the problem
> before you go out of your way to hurt the entire dist.
I would tend to agree - infact, I maintain epic, and it irks me to see
it go into non-free.
> > Debian-policy also is not free, as it contains the fsstnd. As has
> > been noted elsewhere, parts of perl-doc are not free.
> > Given the ongoing status of all of these (I am going to attempt to
> > contact Mr Sandrof later today.. People still haven't really decided
> > what we should do as far as licensing of standards and documentation),
> > I think we ought to leave them alone for now.
> I think this whole mess is being blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION here.
Well.. WRT the irc packages, I think so.. their non-freeness is pretty
dubious (more than anything, they just have an unclear license, but
the authors seem to think it is free).
The other stuff is sort of a quandary.. I mean.. standards are
standards, and aren't worth much if anyone can edit and redistribute
On the other hand, translating, reformatting, borrowing pieces,
improving in the future.. or forking documentation for other projects
are all quite valid. We have yet to really define a good line as far
as free documentation is concerned.
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org