On Sat 3 March 2000, at 15 h 52, the keyboard of Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > interested in is under this licence. Does anyone know it? It seems clearly > > non-free, but not too much non-free :-} > > We have discussed it before. A list of non-free licences, as well as the reasons they are non-free could be useful. rms would certainly blame us to advertise non-freeness, but it could be useful. > Any kind of nonfreeness is too much. I agree it is for the "non-free" archive. But does anyone see a larger problem, which would prevent it to get into Debian?
