On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 11:48:29AM +0100, James Troup wrote: > > And yet there are two attempts out there to write a free ICQ server. The > > specs are published. Nobody has released one yet but so what? > > > > If the protocol is published the lack of a free server AT THE MOMENT > > should not penalize the software. > > Blah. If a program, foobar, is linked against the non-free libevil, > it goes in contrib. The fact that someone is planning, writing or > even thinking about writing a libgood DFSG replacement for libevil, > does *not* mean we put foobar in the main. In the same way the fact > that there is _currently_ no free server is all that matters. Server != library. There is no linking. There is no requirement to use it with a non-free server. I ask you again, is a perl script which reads freshmeat only good enough for contrib because scoop hasn't published sources to his CGIs? > [The kind of `oh, but it'll be free RSN' attitude is exactly why we're > stuck with qmail on master; needless to say, I'm less than impressed > with it.] There is noting that isn't free about the icq clients. OTOH tik I don't know of a server being written to use it other than AOL's. However just because I don't know of one doesn't mean there isn't one. I don't consider myself qualified to decide whether or not the icq server projects are far enough along to make the clients good enough for main or not. This isn't a cut and dry issue like a library. With a library I can ask myself does it work with a free replacement or not? With an unknown server and published specs for how the client and server interoperate, who is to say? -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Caytln slaps Lisa <Caytln> catfight :P <LisaHere> Watch it girl, I like that. <LisaHere> :) <Caytln> figures :D
Attachment:
pgpyh7jzeSAaG.pgp
Description: PGP signature