Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it >>>removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it >>>without moving, apart from relying your "let's GPL it" advice to upstream. >> >>I think it would likely end up in non-free, since it's clearly freely >>distributable. It depends on how likely Debian and its mirrors are to >>have to send libc or readline to INRIA/Cristal. > > Well, all the arguments given for its non-freeness (threat to chinese > dissident privacy, risk of suing harasment to our users) apply as well for > removing the package from non-free.
Nope. Software in the non-free section may or may not have any particular rights, and the only required right is the right for Debian to redistribute. For absolutely anything else, you must read the individual licenses. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
