Re: apt-get install wordperfect?
On Thu, May 27, 1999 at 03:13:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> James Mastros <james@rtweb.net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:01:27PM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
> > > Is it possible for commercial software to make it into the Debian
> > > archives(presumably in non-free)?
> > [...]
> >
> > I'd tend to agree with the feeling in the above (apt-able archives of
> > non-(DFSG)-free but (beer)-free are a Good Thing), but don't like the idea
> > of Debian doing it -- it just dosn't seem like your (Caveat empator: I am
> > not a debian-developer (yet)) place, and it almost certianly wasn't the idea
> > of the people donating server space/bandwidth to be hosting commercial
> > software.
>
> I emphatically deny that.
>
> Our (Debian's) place is to provide a truly integrated OS. An
> integrated OS which lacks integration for key pieces of the puzzle
> (such as commercial databases) lowers the general usefulness of Debian
> to our users.
>
> Now, clearly, our priority is on free software. However, I get upset
> at people who get upset at other people for packaging non-free
> software. Packages for non-free software is a fine addition to
> Debian, so long as it make the user's experience of Debian better.
> Sure, it's not "official" Debian, but still -- the user will benefit.
Also, ...
there are some part in non-free that are almost free. I maintain a package that
is DFSG compliant but modified work cannot be distributed in binary form. That
makes it non free, but it is nothing compared to other kind of non-free stuff
we have in non-free (like xforms or others, don't know don't use non-free
software much.) Perhaps it would be good to discriminate a bit more between
different non-free stuff ? In particular i am speaking ofr other packages
(under DFSG free license) that use this package t be built (it is ocaml, a ML
style language) but cannot go into main debian because of it ( even if it does
not depend on it, only for building.
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: