Re: Why only one non-free section?

1998-09-15 Thread Sven
If you really want to get a cut of the profit, why not start selling CDs? i am not speaking for myself, but i see that some people dont like this kind of thing, and in particular i am thinking about people developping software at universities. i don't think it is that they want a share for

Re: Why only one non-free section?

1998-09-15 Thread Sven
people would buy an official Debian CD for 500 $. The more people know about the idea of Free Software, the less likely is such behaviour. like said, the true problem is not on selling CDs, but on using the product in their own product, without giving some of the benefits back to the people

Re: Why only one non-free section?

1998-09-15 Thread Carey Evans
This should probably be in gnu.misc.discuss or somesuch... Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: like said, the true problem is not on selling CDs, but on using the product in their own product, without giving some of the benefits back to the people who made it. If you GPL it this becomes much

Re: Why only one non-free section?

1998-09-15 Thread Matthew Wilcox
Sven do you suggest the universities start selling debian cds to finance themself. I don't see why not. They have a captive market of near-penniless students who would be willing to buy the CDs from them. As long as they don't get greedy, there's no incentive for the students to bother doing

Re: Why only one non-free section?

1998-09-15 Thread Tyson Dowd
On 15-Sep-1998, Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you really want to get a cut of the profit, why not start selling CDs? i am not speaking for myself, but i see that some people dont like this kind of thing, and in particular i am thinking about people developping software at universities.

Official CD screwups (Was: Why only one non-free section?)

1998-09-15 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 09:27:10AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Raul But note that contrib is being packaged as an official part of Debian. A small nit. It is being packaged on the official CD, but is not an official part of Debian. I have the LSL Ofiicial CD and it

Re: Why only one non-free section?

1998-09-15 Thread Sven
Now please, take this discussion elsewhere. sorry i got lost, there was a similar thread elsewhere, and i folowoed this one without looking at the mailing list it is sent to. and yes i read everything you mentioned. But does it take in account the non US situation also ? Friendmly, Sven

Re: Why only one non-free section?

1998-09-15 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Monday 14 September 1998, at 16 h 5, the keyboard of Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what if i release a software under some kind of DFSG compliant license. someone can simply come and sell the stuff. making profit from it, but never giving some of it back to the author or the Free

Re: Official CD screwups (Was: Why only one non-free section?)

1998-09-15 Thread Stephen J. Carpenter
On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 05:14:16AM +, Joseph Carter wrote: All right, I am REALLY becoming annoyed at seeing this. Infomagic, Cheapbytes, and LSL have all managed to over the small course of Debian history that I am personally aware of totally SCREW UP the Debian CDs and call them

Re: Official CD screwups (Was: Why only one non-free section?)

1998-09-15 Thread Peter S Galbraith
I have the LSL Official CD and it doesn't contain contrib. I had to buy a Gold CDR to get contrib on CD... Joseph Carter wrote: 1. We can ask the vendors to not refer to their CD-ROM distributions as official unless they are direct burns or presses of the

using packages in slink

1998-09-15 Thread tony mancill
Hopefully this question isn't too dense, but I'm interested in seeing how others handle this problem. I pointed my hamm system at an ftp server carrying slink and updated my package list. Now dselect wants me to update about 80MB of software on my system. This is ok, I guess, but I happened to