On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 01:23, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Sajith VK]
> > You people has already clearly documented why each package is
> > included (Really a nice job!). So if we can list the non-free
> > software, the "freedom enthusiasts" can work to find/make free
> > alternative for each of them.
> If there is some info missing on the list? Your "if we can list the
> non-free software" make me believe you are unable to find this info on
> the list.
It explains why each package is included, but says nothing
about its License.
Package,Why,Responsible,NeedConfig are the present parameters.
Including license and Free/non-free too as parameters will be
helpful. It will helpus to easly identify the non-free packages
> > Now regarding flash, Why cant we avoild flash support?.
> We can't, because some service providers for the schools make web
> pages using flash. It is hard to get the schools or the government to
> understand that such pages is a bad idea. :/
- Re: non-free?
- From: Hilaire Fernandes <firstname.lastname@example.org>