On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:22PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 24, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[mrouted]
> >If anyone actually cares, I may be able to get this relicensed and am
> >willing to at least try. I'm mildly surprised that anyone is still using
> >this.
> Two
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:48:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In linux.debian.legal, Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now I'm asking for suggestions for replacements and comments on whether
> > some packages should be either moved to main or removed completely
> > because of the l
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps
> this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
BTW, maybe
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the RFCs, if Debian cannot live with different degree of freedom
> depending on the nature of the software it brings (RFC are not
> programs, and by nature, there is no point in being able to modify
> freely a standard like RFCs)
Nonsense. You know w
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> The page is at http://www.iki.fi/nvainio/debian/non-free.html
This is a good effort. As a maintainer of three non-free packages
(molphy, treetool, phylip) I can assure you that I regularly try
to contact the authors of these programms. For the first tw
[I'm subscribed to -devel but not -vote or -legal, so please CC appropriately.]
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages
> currently in non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give
> suggestions. Perhaps this page can help in the discussion about
> removing non-
On Jan 24, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[mrouted]
>If anyone actually cares, I may be able to get this relicensed and am
>willing to at least try. I'm mildly surprised that anyone is still using
>this.
Two weeks ago I opened #227146 but the maintainer did not reply:
The OpenBSD
Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps
> this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
>
> Also included is explanation
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In linux.debian.legal, Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Now I'm asking for suggestions for replacements and comments on whether
>> some packages should be either moved to main or removed completely
>> because of the license or what kind of cha
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps
> this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
>
> Also i
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps
> this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
>
> Also i
I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps this
page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
Also included is explanation why the package is in non-free. This is based
on the
12 matches
Mail list logo
