Re: ITP lame

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: ITP lame
From: "Marco d'Itri" <md@linux.it>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:06:38 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20000905140638.A1340@wonderland.linux.it>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20000905134733.B8529@aeon.dhis.net>; from mickyb@es.co.nz on Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:47:33PM +1200
References: <[🔎] 20000904174836.A2521@iname.com> <[🔎] 20000905134733.B8529@aeon.dhis.net>

On Sep 05, Michael Beattie <mickyb@es.co.nz> wrote:

 >If it was legal for lame to be distributed with debian, I can tell you now,
 >it would be in the archive overnight. - But it isnt, so it wont.
We have pandora for that, and I remember Wichert agreed to this use.
What still needs to be done to have a debian section for software
covered by software patents?

-- 
ciao,
Marco



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ITP lame
  - From: David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu>

References:
- Re: ITP lame
  - From: Rogerio Brito <rbrito@iname.com>
- Re: ITP lame
  - From: Michael Beattie <mickyb@es.co.nz>

Prev by Date: Re: alternatives for MUA and NUA?
Next by Date: QT-GPL
Previous by thread: Re: ITP lame
Next by thread: Re: ITP lame
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread