Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying.
I have removed the text that you quoted.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is
Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20/02/06, Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Simon, are you trolling?
Not intentionally.
(...)
Another reason was the following paragraph from autoconfs README.Debian:
No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:02 +0400, olive wrote:
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Everything is always possible. Even understanding how a program works
without source by disassembling it. If a free program depends on an
non-free library you can reimplement the free library.
ITYM the non-free
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say trust me, we
thought about this, but
Simon Huerlimann wrote:
Hi Frank
On Monday, 20. February 2006 18:08, Frank Küster wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you explain that you would like to
continue to use GFDL'ed (or OPL'ed, for that matter) documentation, but
refuse to add non-free to you sources list?
Because
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:12:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses to
What would be good would be a license field for DEB packages, as well
as being able to include packages from other repositories based on the
content of a field.
e.g.
Name: autoconf-doc
...
License: gfdl
and /etc/apt/preferences:
License: gfdl
7 matches
Mail list logo
