Re: Down to 10 ?able packages.
Henry Hollenberg speed@barney.iamerica.net
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 1998 at 03:54:40PM -0600, Henry Hollenberg wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Mar 04, 1998 at 03:07:45PM -0600, Henry Hollenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Package: smail _cut_ .vs. Replace with qmail?
> > > > >
> > > > > Qmail isn't even non-free and cannot even be considered as an
> > > > > alternative.
SNIP
> > I thought I read on the developer list that Bruce OK'd it to go into
> > debian as non-free...wouldn't this be "distribution"?
>
> Afaik that's a qmail-source-patch package. It does not contain
> a Qmail binary nor Qmail source files. Afaik it only contains
> files and patches to build a .deb from the official (well, the one
> and only) source file distributed by djb.
>
> Please prove me wrong.
>
Well, since I'm relying on you guys greatly to keep me on track and know
very little about Debian, (for now), I would have great trouble proving
you wrong!
But, I would like clarification...what principle is at issue here:
a) It's a "Bad Thing"? (ie the source policy etc isn't free)
b) It can't be used by a private individual? (I'm pretty sure it can.)
c) It can't be part of a commercial firewall, ie "be sold for profit"?
d) It can't be installed "unmodified" using an automated script?
Thanks hgh
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-firewall-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? e-mail to listmaster@debian.org .
Reply to: