On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation > > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what > > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what > > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > > and say it is mostly OK. > > Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by Debian > itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see that, if > given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below).
Are you a lawyer? If not, I'm not particularly inclined to believe you on this count. > > > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone > > > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of > > > course, NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" > > > Debian soon anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their > > > server), and they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For > > > the rest of non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not > > > the reason they're in non-free to begin with. > > > > The pine author would for one thing. > > Then load everything up but pine, if that's the only one you know of. It's the only one we know of /now/. There might be more. That's the whole problem. [rest of blatter snipped, doesn't make sense anyway] -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]