Re: removing gopher
> > > 4. The package is not complete; the source also includes the gopher
> > > server but there is no debian package.
Raul Miller <raul@usatoday.com> wrote:
> > This was deliberate. [It's one thing to distribute a non-free client.
> > It's another to distribute a non-free server.]
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:26:17PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> I am not sure what you mean? Is a non-free server really bad?
Perhaps.
In this case there are free alternatives for the application domain (for
example, apache) and a lot of work would be required just to generate
a decent debian package.
--
Raul
Reply to: