On 2003-10-10, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:58:22PM +0000, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>> On 2003-10-09, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>> > Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in
>> > non-free?
>> non-free is not part of Debian.
>
> Mmm, slogans. Given that...
>
>> >> Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah.
>> > How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal
>> > doesn't?
>> It would be unusual if debian-legal had actually taken a look at it?
>> On this issue, I think a small amount of things like this would be OK,
>> but too much would be bad. =20
>
>=2E..you think that stuff that's not even supported by Debian is okay,
> why do you think that having Debian Labs people even occassionally
> providing software that's "not part of Debian" is an isue?
I don't; did I imply that? By "this issue", I meant to include the
non-free packages case above. Sorry I wasn't clear.
Peace,
Dylan
