On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Leon Brooks wrote: > On Sunday 01 December 2002 05:35 am, Ben Reser wrote:
> > I don't really approve of PLF. It has packages on there that aren't > > even legal anywhere... e.g. the win32 codecs. No "dirty tricks" are > > used at all in that package. Considering that I'm in the US, I won't > > join that list... So if someone wants to put my package in PLF that's > > their privilege, it's GPL. IMHO, PLF needs to be restructured a bit to take these issues into account, and I guess we will haev to leave you out of the discussion. One of the reasons for this is the fact that I am involved in a project to make a customised distro for South Africa, based on Mandrake, but removing some decisions from an install, and since we don't have an equivalent of the DMCA yet, it would be nice to include some software currently available in PLF, but we wouldn't be able to include win32-codecs I guess. > > Texstar or Ranger would probably be happy to host it for you. AFAICT, Ranger > has nothing dodgy (dangerous to DMCA-encumbered citizens) on his box Actually, I have a local PLF mirror for the convenience of the users at the university ... but you will notice fewer RPMs for 9.0 than I had for 8.2, they're going into MandrakeClub now ... , and > Texstar's `dodgies' are things like Flash and RealPlayer, free-to-distribute > like the MSFT TTF's in question anyway. > I think the best option is to get Ben's RPM into PLF, it has actually been discussed there before. Watch plf-discuss for the rest I guess ... Buchan -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
