Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di 27-01-2004, om 04:08 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> > Maybe we could make a list of packages that should be autobuild in
> > contrib/non-free and distribute that to the buildds.
>
> No, we couldn't. The only requirement for a package to go into non-free
> is "Debian must be allowed to distribute it".
Well this is required. Since when does this requirement exclude the
following?
> That does not include
> automated compilation (or even compilation, for that matter) or porting
> the thing to a different architecture.
As I said in this thread there are packages where license is just
unclear like: "This is free software."
Why should this stuff not be allowed to be compiled on different
architectures?
Goswin was talking about a list of packages which can be compiled
manually on all architectures without licensing problems. Why should
occure licensing problems if this is done automatically?
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: