Re: netscape security hole
Tom Allard wrote:
>
> reznaeous@earthlink.net said:
>
> > Why not just stick with an installation package like is used for
> > RealPlayer?
>
> Real does not allow redistribution of their binaries, which means that it
> would not be legal for you to fetch the binaries off of Debian's archive.
> Software like that requires an installer.
>
> There is no such restriction on redistribution of Netscape binaries.
> However, you don't get the source code either so it's certainly not free.
Ah! So *that's* how they get differentiated? I've been wondering.
> Note also that there is currently a proposal to remove all
> non-free/contrib from the Debian archives completely. One camp argues
> that some of this stuff is pretty important and, after all, the users
> come first so we should make it available to them. The other camp
> argues that users aren't making the proper distinction between what
> "is" and what "is not" part of Debian and that providing Debian's only
> furthers that confusion. I guess you are proving their point.
Perhaps I am. Nah, no perhaps about it. I *am*. I'd hate to see the
removal of all those packages - at least till there are usable free
replacements. But if that's what it takes to prevent episodes like what I
seem to have spawned here, so be it.
Could installer packages for the non-free software be a possible compromise?
I'd think that they would reinforce the fact that the software in question
is indeed coming from outside of the "official Debian" distro.
But if not, well, those packages can always still be installed the
"old-fashioned way".
--
Mike Werner KA8YSD | He that is slow to believe anything and
| everything is of great understanding,
'91 GS500E | for belief in one false principle is the
Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom.
Reply to: