(recipients trimmed to just debian-legal) On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 01:22:15AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > [0] For example, we distribute GPLed binaries linked against Motif. We > > do this because Sun has. Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe Qt is the same, > > and we shouldn't do that either. But then, if Qt's DFSG free (which > > it will be as of v2, by the looks of things), maybe we should add > > Qt support, and dump Motif support. Or maybe not. > Excuse me? > Which binaries are you refering to? > I thought we'd gone over this months ago and that all such binaries had > been pulled or replaced with binaries linked against Lesstif.
I didn't have any in mind in particular, I was just going on what
I remembered.
Having a look through dselect lists:
ddd and (in contrib) ddd-smotif ddd-dmotif
xacc and (in non-free) xacc-smotif
..and a few mozilla's and netscapes. Both ddd and xacc are GPLed, though.
There may be others -- I was only grepping for "motif", but these are
all in both slink and potato on master.
Perhaps these packages are exceptions in some way, though?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
pgp4hFdmFfJIV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
