Re: the gimp?
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 09:58:36PM -0500, Rob Mahurin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 01:36:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 01:11:34PM -0500, Ian Stirling wrote:
> > > "E.L. Meijer (Eric)" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it is a bad idea to call it `debian gimp'. If you do that you
> > > > suggest that debian has a heavily modified, enhanced version of gimp.
> > > > If I were one of the gimp developers I wouldn't like it if someone (say
> > > > Corel) would take it, remove some plugins, and then tack their name on
> > > > it (`Corel gimp'??).
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > >
> > > They are entitled to if it's gpl software but it would
> > > be rude and inconsiderate. What about 'debian-gimp-lite'?
> >
> > Why does Debian have to be in there? Why not just `gimp-lite'?
> >
>
> Why not just preach? 'gimp-libre'?
Actually this is probably the best idea. Every package that has a
`non-free' variant and a free one could have the free package named
..-free. This guarantees the user on the one hand that the contents of
the package is free, and also provides a hint that there are non-free
additions, for those that may need them.
Eric
--
E.L. Meijer (tgakem@chem.tue.nl)
Eindhoven Univ. of Technology
Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (SKA)
Reply to: