On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 04:13:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Does your question apply to *all* of the files mentioned in the mail you > linked to? I don't understand which files you believe are non-free and why; > some of the files mentioned are things like Microsoft Office documents, > which are fine for main. Others are sourceless executables for other > platforms, which are not (and are also not etch-ignore). I'm not sure which > of the remainder are questionable for Debian, so it's hard to comment > further.
The mail I quoted is a starting point. Note that it not only applies to xulrunner, but also applies to mozilla (which will be replaced by iceape), icedove, and firefox (which will be replaced by iceweasel). I guess most of the Word files are fine, though clarification about the licensing of the document would be better (who knows, some documentations could have non-free licenses, like the IETF documents have). The OJI files, on the other hand, from what I can see, do lack source and are thus non-free. The thing is that investigation is required on this issue. The other thing is that AFAIK, the files involved in building our packages are free. Which means that (AFAIK, again) only source tarballs may contain non-free files. Now the question is : do you think it's fine for etch or do we have to not ignore the situation ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]