Zed Pobre wrote: > Actually, I kind of have a nit to pick with this, on the grounds > that a package might not be appropriate for any distribution on the > grounds of a completely unacceptable license (which I suppose would > mean that the appropriate distribution is the bitbucket and the > statement holds, but somehow it seems inelegant).
There's lots of other parts of policy that say what may go in debian, and in non-free, non-us, and contrib. I see no reason to repeat it in the paragraph I am amending. -- see shy jo
