* Marc Balmer [2006-10-28]: > This software, however, is not free. ... > Do we want such stuff in the tree? I tend to say no, but I'd like to > hear some opinions. A software's license is usually not an indicator of whether or not we want a port for that program committed (espie already mentioned djb's software as an exception). A port has to be maintainable and that means distfiles have to be accessible or at least the person who has access to the distfiles has to be accessible.
If some unknown user submitted a port for a commercial application where you need to buy CDs to get distfiles, there wouldn't be any chance to get it in. If a long time committer did the same, he would just commit it. I maintain unfree software myself (opera and acroread) but those are no problem at all, as distfiles are readily available without any hassle. Nikolay -- "It's all part of my Can't-Do approach to life." Wally
