Joseph Carter wrote:
> I think the author's license is the only reasonable measure of use
> restrictions. Outside the US I'm free to use LZW, RSA, mp3, etc to my
> heart's content. Inside the US all crypto should be considered non-free
> by the above definition because the US crypto controls are
Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
> So maybe, just like dpkg, debhelper could output a warning if it doesn't/
> cannot create the link? At least for a certain period of time, till the
> migration is finished. I think this would even help package maintainers to
> find the bug when they test their package
On Oct 02, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG.
Seconded.
--
ciao,
Marco
Joey Hess wrote:
> > For example, I found that libpanel-applet0 leaves a single file in its
> > old doc directory (currently unexplainable and unreproducable by the
> > maintainer) preventing the compatibility link to be created.
[...]
> > Another example is the latest 'time' package, which do
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 07:49:04AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Encumbered by patents should be non-us, not non-free. And even there,
> > only for cases where someone makes an issue of it.
>
> Depends on what kind of "encumbered". Currently we put packages with
> problematic _distribution_
5 matches
Mail list logo
