On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 02:28:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > 2.1.4. The non-free section > > --------------------------- > > > > `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG > > or which are encumbered by legal issues which render the software's > > distribution problematic. > > Unfortunatly this change really makes no difference. Being patented _is_ > being "encumbered by legal issues". You've just removed an example of a > general case, anyone reading the above proposed text can conclude that it > applies to patents.
I see your point. > It's a good idea, but you need to fig your language to say what you meant. > Perhaps: > > 2.1.4. The non-free section > --------------------------- > Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG. > > Or perhaps adding to that "or which are encumbered by legal issues which > render the software's distribution problematic, but are not patents." I thought about the "...but aren't patents" idea and didn't like how the result looked/felt. I think your suggestion is probably the best way to do this, so if anybody who has seconded the proposal does not object, consider the proposal altered. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <zpx> it's amazing how "not-broken" debian is compared to slack and rh
pgpF9ZTyFnRfQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
