Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-26 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > Neither. I was simply wondering if you felt free software in particular > which is needed by a user of Debian had a stronger claim to inclusion in > Debian than non-free software, even if also needed by a user of Debian. > > Because if you don't, it'

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-25 Thread Mario Lang
Milan Zamazal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "ML" == Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ML> I now took the time and summarized the current state of things > ML> regarding accessibility and Debian, and also tried to give a bit > ML> of overview which areas could use help fro

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-25 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:34:28PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > I seriousely fail to see a reason why any free software which is needed > > > by a user of Debian should not be worth to be included in Debian. > > > > Why, in particular, do you s

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-25 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I seriousely fail to see a reason why any free software which is needed > > by a user of Debian should not be worth to be included in Debian. > > Why, in particular, do you say "free" software, instead of software in > general? Is this one of your j

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-25 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:54:28AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On 22 Nov 2002, Milan Zamazal wrote: > > > packages from testing/unstable and several non-Debian packages > > (i.e. packages not worth to be included in Debian in the given moment). > I seriousely fail to see a reason why any free so

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-25 Thread Andreas Tille
On 22 Nov 2002, Milan Zamazal wrote: > packages from testing/unstable and several non-Debian packages > (i.e. packages not worth to be included in Debian in the given moment). I seriousely fail to see a reason why any free software which is needed by a user of Debian should not be worth to be incl

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-22 Thread Milan Zamazal
> "AT" == Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: AT> To make it clear: I'm not in fear of a separate distribution. AT> Everybody is free to do so. But in my opinion you could reach AT> your goal more straightforeward if you do not. I'd like to clarify a confusion introduced by

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-22 Thread Andreas Tille
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Tomas Cerha wrote: > Hello, I am one of the people involved in Free(b)soft (and Free(b)deb) > project. Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify some > details. The goal of Free(b)deb project is not a separate distribution. To make it clear: I'm not in fear of a

Re: Debian Accessibility Project was: Re: linux for blinds

2002-11-22 Thread Tomas Cerha
Andreas Tille wrote: Sorry, I do not have the time to cooperate with any further project. I will do all the best to make Debian the best distribution for all purposes I could think off. That's why I tried to convince other projects which tried to build a Debian based distribution for a special fie