Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes:
> Hendrik Weimer <hendrik@enyo.de> wrote:
>> It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other
>> distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign,
>> BTW.
>
> Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn't find
> a good study, but it might exist. I found some evidence that Debian
> rejects packages present in Ubuntu, but that's a special case and only
> one related distribution.
A list of packages that have or had license issues from the top of my
head: gnucash (HBCI support), kmymoney2 (HBCI support),
ttf-liberation, bacula (encryption), libapache-mod-security. The only
case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a
package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of
other cases, I would be interested to learn about them.
> Even if so, how does one get from that fact to "Debian's policy on
> licensing usually involves taking the high road..."?
I would claim that said fact presents evidence that this statement is
true. But again, I do not see a problem with this.
Hendrik
Reply to: