On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 +0000 Andrew M.A. Cater
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to
licence
changes.
Can you give a reference for that, or are you making up Craig's views?
He seems to get quite upset about that. As far as I can tell, he only
ack'd that they were fixed "in part" due to being moved to non-free. I
doubt that the mere presence in non-free does much "in and of itself"
and the dialogue with the upstream and others is more important.
b.) Potentially, merge contrib into main: the packages within contrib
are, by
their nature, DFSG free but may need non-DFSG software to build, for
example.
Only things which can work without non-free should do this, IMO. I
think that's the current situation, based on what people have written
to me this week.
c.) Document that fact in the relevant package descriptions. Don't
"recommend" non-DFSG in apt/deselect - which removes one of rms's
problems -
Are you sure? I think that he considers our "support" for it more of a
problem than the control fields.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
