[CC'ing to debian-edu] El mar, 02-08-2005 a las 15:26 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen escribió: > [Dario Rapisardi] > > I also noticed a question from Petter regarding Squeak. We do > > consider Squeak as Free Software too, and we even have one guy > > developing exclusively our Squeak image. > > [Petter Reinholdsten] > Do you plan to work on getting squeak into debian (preferably > debian/main)? It would give the debian squeak users access to the > quality framework of debian. For that to happen, someone need to > convince the ftpmasters in Debian that squeak is according to the > Debian Free Software Guidelines. > > [Dario Rapisardi] > > However, as someone told in the list, the Indemnification Clause is the > > most problematic. Squeak is also mentioned in the "Unable to Package" > > section in Debian. > > > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package > > [Petter Renholdsten] > Yes. I wish there were some rationale or references to why the package > is considered "unpackable", to make it easier to argue against it. The issue has been discused several times. The last one was last year in debian-legal. The thread is quite big: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00160.html Somebody suggested to include it in 'non-free', but putting Squeak in the same repository as Java or other really proprietary software doesn't seem fair to me. > [Dario Rapisardi] > > If you have further questions, the Squeak guy is Diego Gómez Deck, > > and he can be reached at diegogomezdeck@consultar.com > > [Petter Reinholsdten] > OK. CC to him. It would be better if we continued this discussion on > debian-ed@, I believe. -- Dario Rapisardi (GNU/Human Unstable) dario@rapisardi.org http://rapisardi.org --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente