non-free and "cd-ok", again
Sorry to bring this topic up again, I'm very sick of it already.
But reading the GTK-Mozilla thread in ./ I just noticed what's
the point onf people who advocate this.
There are plenty of programs in non-free which have absolutely
no restrictions on distributions; these are in non-free because
either
1: you can't modify it
2: there are restrictions in its use (like, no commercial use)
3: there are no sources
The most notable example is Qt, which I would never use but lots
of people complain about not being able to get in a Debian CD.
Quoting directly from ./, hanord@troll.com said:
> Wrong. Anybody can redistribute Qt Free Edition on ftp or
> CD-ROM without paying us, even if they charge a fee. Debian
> and RedHat are free to putting Qt on their CD-ROMs without
> paying us a cent. What we require is that Qt is redistributed
> unmodified and as a whole. People who use Qt to write
> proprietary software (i.e. not free software) must obtain a
> Qt Professional Edition.
So basically there is plenty of reson to leave qt out of main,
since this is against the philosofies of Free Software, DFSG and
Debian; but there isn't any reason not to include them in CDs.
If there was a "cd-ok" distribution, people would be able to use
kde from the CD only, without any download. Not that I think
this is a good thing, but lotsa people do. :-)
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
Howling to the moonlight on a hot summer night...
http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:lalo@webcom.com
pgp key in the web page
Free Software Union -- http://www.fslu.org
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: