> [non-debian corel wp.deb example]
As pointed out, *corel* is providing the deb to others; it isn't part
of debian; they can just ignore the policy point.
However, it also occurs to me that this could be a clever little use
of the reverse-suggests feature that inspired this subthread: the free
p
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Now Corel would want to follow the Debian Policy out of respect for Debian,
> naturally, but also because if they do they know that their non-free
> package will remain functional even if a new version of Debian is released.
>
> At this point they
I wrote:
>> Requiring this formally will make it impossible for many commercials to
>> contribute (since you cannot reasonably be required to mention the
>> competition).
Mark W. Eichin replied:
> Umm, I don't see how that follows, actually. Granted, we're trying to
> avoid that the *other* dir
> Requiring this formally will make it impossible for many commercials to
> contribute (since you cannot reasonably be required to mention the
> competition).
Umm, I don't see how that follows, actually. Granted, we're trying to
avoid that the *other* direction, ie. avoid mentioning non-free
"co
Mark W. Eichin writes:
> In a thread on -private about pdf viewers, it was noticed that people
> were sometimes unaware of free alternatives to non-dfsg software; the
> particular example was acroread (with gv and xpdf as free replacements.)
>
> This suggests an enhancement: non-free packages sho
In a thread on -private about pdf viewers, it was noticed that people
were sometimes unaware of free alternatives to non-dfsg software; the
particular example was acroread (with gv and xpdf as free replacements.)
This suggests an enhancement: non-free packages should perhaps include
(formally? or
6 matches
Mail list logo
