Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:04:46PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> > mizar:[~] apt-cache show agrep G Section >> > Section: non-free/text >> > >> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-resources.en.html#s4.6.1 >> >> So what? In the first sentence quoted, "in Debian" is clearly not meant >> in that sense. Still a package named agrep is in Debian's non-free >> repository, can be installed via the debian-package management tools, >> can probably be found on some CD's named "Debian", is covered by the BTS >> and so on. > > This kind of misinformation is exactly why we would be better off without > non-free. If you had bothered to do some trivial research, you would > already know that non-free would never be on a Debian CD,
That's clear, as far as non-free as a whole is concerned. But anybody could add a non-free path to his CDs based on Debian and distribute exactly the subset of packages that he is allowed to, no? > and that some of > the packages in non-free are there exactly because their redistribution is > restricted. I know. >> So, is this program the same as the one referred to in the subject? > > It makes no difference to me. So you think it doesn't matter wether there's two packages named agrep in non-free? I accept your opinion that we would be better without non-free. But since we have it and let "it" use the infrastructure, we have to care about such things too, of course. Bye, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
