In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(I am not subscribed. Please CC: me on replies.)
Hi D.G.,
You wrote:
> If you *have* to do this, until the situation is resolved with
> FSF, can they atleast be put in a different section, say
> "nonfree-but-gnu" (or abbreviated as "gnu"), so we can put that
> section in our sources.list and still not have to put "nonfree"
> in our sources.list?
I have a similar idea:
1) Instead of putting the packages into "nonfree-but-gnu" only,
you could put them into both, "nonfree-but-gnu" *and*
"non-free". This would avoid a decision not to put them into
"non-free". (You could even maintain the new section
completely independently of Debian).
2) Instaed of creating a "nonfree-but-gnu" section, you could
create a "nonfree-but-redistributable" section for anything
that is not fully modifyable but otherwise free. This would
also cover RFCs etc.
3) It would be great if apt-cache search would report the
classification of a package big and red, just like
packages.debian.org (I don't know though it can do that
already, though).
(Please note that this idea has no big importance to me,
personally. If I need a non-free package, I can download it
manually, or put "non-free" into my sources.list. With this
idea, I am mainly trying to adress those people who would
otherwise demand a change in the DFSG or in the social contract,
and I don't want these rules to be changed.)
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://www.bildungsbande.de/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
