Re: [arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

2007-12-18 Thread Grigorios Bouzakis
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:41:56PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Nonetheless, IF there is no clearly defined license especially when no > license document is extent on stuff that is meant to be used freely (as > long as it is not for commercial distribution), then why shouldn't arch > allow fo

Re: [arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

2007-12-18 Thread Xavier
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:59:17PM +0200, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > Chapter 2 :P > > Now regarding a possible replacement of the ttf-ms-fonts package from > extra. > As i have said before i am no expert on the topic. > I have seen people on the web claiming that there is no real substitute > for

Re: [arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

2007-12-18 Thread w9ya
O.K you asked for people's relevant comments. Here's mine; Ya know I really am as concerned as the next guy fella or gal about licenses being adhered to. Nonetheless, IF there is no clearly defined license especially when no license document is extent on stuff that is meant to be used freely

Re: [arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

2007-12-18 Thread David Rosenstrauch
Aaron Griffin wrote: I have been meaning to ask, AFAIK besides the codecs package the same license have ttf-ms-fonts. Is there any change to see them in unsupported too? IMO the fonts are a more complex issue than the codecs one, since most users have them installed. Theres already an AUR entry f

Re: [arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

2007-12-18 Thread Grigorios Bouzakis
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:37:13AM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Dec 18, 2007 2:33 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have been meaning to ask, AFAIK besides the codecs package the same > > license have ttf-ms-fonts. Is there any change to see them in > > unsupported too? >

Re: [arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

2007-12-18 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Dec 18, 2007 2:33 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is Archlinux reconsidering license issues with the binary packages > residing at its repos? > It certainly seems so... > > http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-December/003780.html > http://archlinux.org/news/37

[arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

2007-12-18 Thread Grigorios Bouzakis
Is Archlinux reconsidering license issues with the binary packages residing at its repos? It certainly seems so... http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-December/003780.html http://archlinux.org/news/374/ I really think this is a change for the better. I have been meaning to ask, A