Re: Please stop the discrimination of non-free packages
Adrian Bunk <email@example.com> writes:
> In my eyes it's e.g. a discrimination that isn't needed that our
> autobuilder don't build non-free packages automatically.
Go away, troll. It's perfectly possible to have a license on a
package non-free that says "you may not port this package [to <foo>]"
(I know of at least one example one which use to several years ago,
but it became GPLed later), so even ignoring for a moment the
perfectly valid reasoning of "we don't want to", there's solid legal
reasons why non-free not only shouldn't but _can't_ be auto-built.