On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:09:23AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:45:40AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:42:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:06:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > I believe it is well possible that some third party, after having > > > > examined the particular licence of every package, do indeed at non-free > > > > to the CD set, as they also added non-US in the past. > > > > > > In that case they don't add non-free to the CD set; they just add parts > > > of it. > > > > Ok, they add parts of it. Thanks for clarifying my impressise > > terminology. Still part of non-free remains non-free :) > > That does not make it 'semi-official' though, or what was your point?
Well, semi-official is vague enough to encompass many things. I don't know what was originally meant, but i do believe that you could mean a semi-official CD set to contain the whole of the official CD + some other stuff, it would be partially official, and so : partial, semi, ... Not really important quibling over words though. I just wanted to say that i remember there being CD sets with parts of non-free on it, and maybe that was what was designed under smei-official. Friendly, Sven Luther
