Re: Please stop the discrimination of non-free packages
On 22 Nov 2001, James Troup wrote:
> 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
I´m not really sure if this is a troll (at least if this is in fact
a good pronounciation for a developer who thinks about making things
> 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.
What about positive/negative lists for those packages which