> Raul Miller wrote: > > So, when I'm talking about "prevent distribution of", I'm talking > > about "prevent distribution of non-free", not "prevent distribution > > of upstream".
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian > developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will > be ethical to reject a request to distribute it, since I do not have it. Dropping non-free will have no affect, one way or the other, on Debian distributing Windows XP. If you think it would, I understand why it is that we've been talking past each other. -- Raul
