On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free. > > > > On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated > > packages you have mut. > > > > On the other hand, it's a development project, not a distribution of > > stuff available from elsewhere. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:29:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > You appear to be grasping. And here I thought I was answering a specific question. > What critera must another project possess > for you to regard it as "comparable to non-free"? > > What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? Me? In my case, a project would be "comparable to non-free", if there's a reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. > You need to identify traits other than "something maintained by Debian", > else you're begging the question. Ok, trivial. Long since done. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
