Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:20:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Uptime and infrastructure (including archive, BTS and perhaps PTS[1])
>
> I will believe in it once i see it. I have serious doubts, but please,
> go ahead, and prove me wrong.
>
> That said, i wonder if the energy spent on that could not have been
> better spent in something else, and if being able to be said as not
> containing non-free is worth it.
I can't parse that. Of course, the energy would be better spent on Free
Software, I didn't cry for an alternative once non-free is dropped,
d'oh.
> This whole thing seems really hypocrit to me though, since the aim seems
> to be for debian to drop non-free, but still provide non-free under
> another name.
'Debian' certainly will not provide non-free. Somebody will provide the
resources, one or two maintainers will keep it going and the individual
package maintainers will provide the packages. At least, that's how I
think it could work.
Michael
Reply to: