On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:04:08PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-03-08 14:43:45 +0000 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Ah, but i would be barred from entering the US forever after. > > Aren't you already? ;-) > > >Yeah, but at least the threat to remove their package from non-free > >would have some weight. > > If you currently threaten your upstreams with that, please do us a > favour and ask debian-legal to talk to them about licensing on your > behalf in future.
I do not, but it was the crux of Branden's argument about that obscure adobe package. > >>Point taken about developer motivations, but it's odd to ignore > >>external > >>non-free existing already, but ask the project to act based > >And how much of those are you using, and how much of those to you > >trully > >trust in on production hardware ? > > I have third-party free software packages on production hardware. At > present, I don't believe I have any non-free third-party packages on > there, but I'd need to check to be sure. > > >And then, there is currently packages in non-free who are more free > >than > >packages in main, so ... > > Do you know of non-free software in main? If so, please report the > bugs. Otherwise, please don't drag this OT yet again with a "yet > another definition of free" (YADOF) debate. Well all the GNU documentation, i believe, which are not really all that much non-free than some of the documentation packages i care about in non-free, among them ocaml-doc, which was previously in main as part of the ocaml package, and got moved to non-free as it became clear that the licence was non-free (upstreams asks to be informed about changes). Friendly, Sven Luther
