On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 06:38:48PM -0500, Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote: > Hi David, > > thanks for answering, but what I meant was that if I wished to look for > another package that, as just like the case of pine, DOESN'T have a > binary version due to license restrictions or anything else, I couldn't. > Or at least up to now I don't know how to work it out. Every binary package in Debian has a corresponding source package, accessible using apt-get install and apt-get source. The non-free section of the archive is an exception, but is not actually part of Debian proper. There is a huge 'discussion' on debian-devel about this at the moment. One of the main arguments for ditching non-free seems to be that people aren't aware of the distinction. > Another example could be the IDEA ciphering algorithm. GnuPG doesn't > consider this algorithm because of patent restrictions. The point is > that in some countries the patent doesn't apply, and at GnuPG web site > you can download the source of the plugin, compile and install. And the > question remains, how am I suppose to know whether this IDEA plugin is > available (like pine) to be downloaded and installed via apt-get source? Non-free software goes in non-free, and software that has (known) patents on it goes in non-US. Sadly, more and more countries are actually beginning to recognise software patents, so it may only be a matter of time before software that uses patented algorithms cannot be distributed from anywhere. Anyhow, there's a simple rule: dodgy licenses go in non-Free (if it can be distributed at all), and potentially patent-encumbered stuff goes in non-US (again, if it can be distributed at all). -rob
Attachment:
pgpnOJUZ5aX4y.pgp
Description: PGP signature