On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Shaya Potter wrote: > > > On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Karl Ferguson wrote: > > > > > The whole idea for the "non-free" area is that it belongs to programs with > > > difficult copyright notices such as it's not to be distributed etc. I > > > seriously doubt that any CD manufacturer will include it on a distributed > > > CD > > > because it may well break copyright laws. > > > > > This isn't exactly true. A package can go into non-free if commercial > > use is not allowed. A CD manufacturer can then put the package on the CD > > if they make a notice that commercial use is prohibited. At least this > > is how I understand it. > > My understanding is that producing a CD for sale (which I do) is a > commercial use of the software and therefore not allowed. Pine, on the > other hand, is in non-free, but I can distribute it because it's only > restriction is that I may not put pine on a CD with proprietary software > (this restriction is enough to place it in non-free). It is for each > re-distributor to decide which of these packages they can use. That is the > reason they are in non-free to begin with.
I was thinking along the line of something like cucipop, which if I remember correctly is free for personal use, but not for isp's to use and it therefore was put in non-free, but it could probably be distributed on a cd, couldn't it? Shaya -- Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
