On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Mike Werner wrote:
> So I will ask yet again. Whay not go with an installation package for all
> of the evil nasty non-free software, like they did for RealPlayer? And
> while I'm at it, why is some non-free stuff packaged up and other non-free
> stuff uses an installation package?
>
> I even went back and re-read it. Twice. I still don't see why the
> difference between an installation package and actual packaging. I even
> just now went back and read it through again. Nowhere in that Social
> Contract is there anything saying why the differentiation between packaging
> a supposedly non-free package and using an installation package.
You are looking in the wrong place... it is the license of the software
that determines if it can be made available as a binary, or must use an
installer package to be redistributed.
later,
Bruce
