On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, the package containing it, which means creating a "perl-doc-non-free"
> package.
But wait--we can't even do that, due to the very licensing we're discussing.
Even worse.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> > > So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
> >
> > I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
> > non-free...
>
> #pragma begin_sarcasm(1000)
>
> Move perl to non-free?, things seem to be gett
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
> > non-free...
> >
> #pragma begin_sarcasm(1000)
[...]
> #pragma end_sarcasm()
See what happen
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the
> perl package documentation. Separating it from perl is a
> non-option from the perspective of users.
Objection. The sole purpose of this manpage is to duplicate things
c
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:55:55AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
> >
> > So it does. It will have to be relicensed or re
5 matches
Mail list logo
