On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 09:58:36PM -0500, Rob Mahurin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 01:36:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 01:11:34PM -0500, Ian Stirling wrote: > > > "E.L. Meijer (Eric)" wrote: > > > > > > > I think it is a bad idea to call it `debian gimp'. If you do that you > > > > suggest that debian has a heavily modified, enhanced version of gimp. > > > > If I were one of the gimp developers I wouldn't like it if someone (say > > > > Corel) would take it, remove some plugins, and then tack their name on > > > > it (`Corel gimp'??). > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > They are entitled to if it's gpl software but it would > > > be rude and inconsiderate. What about 'debian-gimp-lite'? > > > > Why does Debian have to be in there? Why not just `gimp-lite'? > > > > Why not just preach? 'gimp-libre'?
Actually this is probably the best idea. Every package that has a `non-free' variant and a free one could have the free package named ..-free. This guarantees the user on the one hand that the contents of the package is free, and also provides a hint that there are non-free additions, for those that may need them. Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Eindhoven Univ. of Technology Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (SKA)
