On Sat, Aug 21, 1999 at 01:33:53PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > In my opinion all things which have a common upstream source
> > should build based on a common base. I have no overview about
> > the situation of other packages but I think there should be a
> > policy for such cases which avoids doubling upstream sources
> > in the source tree, which could lead to such strange problems.
>
> Not if the binary packages have to be split between main and non-free.
> Source for non-free binaries must itself be non-free, so it can't go
> in main. Binary packages in main must have source in main, so it can't
> go in non-free. The source has to be split.
The whole reason that this is considered non-free is the LZW patent and I
have not seen this enforced evenly, rationally, fairly, or sanely among
packages. The LZW patent affects only the US (anyone have an idea for how
long?) and putting the patented software in non-free puts us at the same
risk(?) putting it in main would and in fact there is LZW-gif stuff in
main.
Arguably the latter should not be where it is, but I think what we're
seeing is a symptom of a larger problem here---that we really don't have a
way to deal with software which is patented in a given place but free
everywhere else.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Flood> netgod: I also have a "Evil Inside" T-shirt (w/ Intel logo).. on
the back it states: "When the rapture comes, will you have root?"
Attachment:
pgplcBmUjyMDw.pgp
Description: PGP signature