Pixel wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Not that I want to start a license war...
>
> well ... ;p
LOL, anytime GPL versus other comes up...
> > Neither is Apache, Netscape, and a host of other packages. Not being
> > GPL'd should not be a bar from being on the main distribution.
>
> no, be not being open source, aka not following debian guideline can be.
>
> apache is free, netscape is not, nor is xv.
XV is available with source, but it has a price tag. AFAIK, the GPL does
not prohibit the sale of open source software. Not that I'm claiming
that XV is necessarily GPL compatible, but it is open, placing it miles
ahead of any commercial closed package.
I hope you are not suggesting that Netscape disappear from the distro?
It's a buggy mess, but it's pretty much the only buggy mess that we have
right now. Konquerer is looking pretty darn good though, so I have
future hopes of dumping Netscape....
> > Pragmatism falls in line with functionality and some of us like XV, it's
> > very reliable, unlike some of the others I have seen. It is the reason I
> > keep using it.
>
> i really don't the point for xv, open yours eyes and you'll see a whole bunch of
> *good* xv replacements. xv should be removed because it is shareware.
>
> (replacements: ImageMagick, ee, eog, gqview, pixie, gimp, all fully working)
I've tried them all. ImageMagick is not GPL either, but is a fantastic
program. I love the Gimp, use it all the time, but it's a little heavy
for quick image viewing. The others, they've all crapped out too often
on me, but I still do use them, it varies.
All I'm getting at is that "non-GPL" (which is what the guy was pushing
on) is not a good reason to exclude a package. Exclude it for other
reasons, such as better alternatives, and all is well in the world. :o)
The Unix world is pragmatic: you use what works until there is better,
then you switch to better. It's the Microsoft way to force people down a
path that suits Microsoft's purpose and not their customers.
John
