Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:22:57PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
> >But is that because of what's contained in "non-free" or is that
> >of the name "non-free"?
> Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So,
> currently, some of the contents is very much not free.
Let's remove it, it is old and obsolete, and kaffe is probably a better
java solution than this right now anyway.