[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure

On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
If you continue like this, I think you make me change my mind about debian
and non-free...
> I myself maintain the ocaml package, developped at french INRIA. it was
> previously distributed under a free but only distribute as pristin source +
> patch (well no binaries). and couldn't go even in non-free without permission
> from the author. There are loads of GPLed and other free stuff which depended
Its a free package but can not even go into non-free? I don't get that.

> This is no netscape or sun, they distribute rpms of the packages, but simply
> lack the time for debian packaging (i guess so, also i suspect most of them
> don't use debian). Sure i could propose as volunteer to package it for them,
> but i would prefer to do it for debian (well no more a problem since the
> package is free now).
Now its free again? Even weirder...

But I think _you_ didn't get Ean's point. non-free is and never has been
part of debian, it just happened to be available on Debian's ftp servers. If
you want to package very-non-free or even-more-non-free software for debian,
just do it(TM), but you simply have to find another place to put it. Ean
just offered in his mail (IIRC) a place to put those packages, other people
will probably also offer things like this, maybe like KDE2 before qt2 was
fixed. Now whats your problem with that? Packages will move only to a
different ftp server, they are still available for everybody, only they are
not on debian machines, to put a little pressure on the authors.
> There is even a package which i packaged and use personnaly, the author gave
> its ok to it, but was rejected (even in non-free) due to obscure wording in
> the licence. The author don't respond anymore to my mails, so i let it be.
So you put the package on your own machine and install it from there, like
we all do with lame and co.  See, just like Ean proposed, so you finally
agree with him, but are only a little confused by your own words?
> But then maybe reclassifying what is in non-free can help here. Not all
> non-free packages are equal.
Like a little pregnant and a little more pregnant?

Reply to: