On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 23:44 US/Eastern, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Are you going to ask the same thing of non-free, too? (I'm not
disagreeing
with you, I'm just curious).
I think that's reasonable. Certainly I'd like to know the license of a
non-free package before installing it.
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:07:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I think it is reasonable to require that installer packages inform the
> user they are about to install non-free software and give the user an
> opportunity to review the license of that software before proceeding,
> though.
* Tore Anderson
>> Although the installer packages themselves certainly are Free,
>> I feel the social contract is being violated when I have main and
>> contrib in my sources.list file, but after having completed the
>> installation of a package from these sections, non-free software
>>
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Tore Anderson wrote:
I don't like the fact that these seem to be (randomly) scattered
over main and contrib. Although the installer packages themselves
certainly are Free, I feel the social contract is being violated
when I have main and contrib i
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Ola Lundqvist
> > Contrib is a perfectly ok place for installers.
>
> I disagree. If I have contrib in my sources.list file, and try
> to install a package from there, I expect only Free software to
> be installed on my system. That means I shou
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in
> the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free
> software and install it on a users' systems.
[...]
>realplayer net
Iirc realplayer has been re
* Ola Lundqvist
> Contrib is a perfectly ok place for installers.
I disagree. If I have contrib in my sources.list file, and try
to install a package from there, I expect only Free software to
be installed on my system. That means I should get either:
1) A fully-functional package, wh
Hi
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:13:17PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
> I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in
> the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free
> software and install it on a users' systems.
>
> I don't like the fact that these see
I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in
the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free
software and install it on a users' systems.
I don't like the fact that these seem to be (randomly) scattered
over main and contrib. Although the installer pa
9 matches
Mail list logo
