Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have little patience for superstitious beliefs, and less still for
> people who claim to be defending the tender feelings of the ignorant.
But why use names correlated with evil when other options are
available which interfere less with Debian's go
knutclient)
> Upstream developer Team of NUT
> ...
> ---
> References:
> - NUT upstream: http://www.exploits.org/nut/
> - NUT Sid packages:
> http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=nut&searchon=names&subword=1&version=unstable&release=all
> -
ware they install.
>
> What do you think?
I think that's insane. The installers are in contrib because they are
free software -- small installer programs -- which require non-free
software -- big useful non-free programs -- to run. They probably
should clean up after themselves when --purged, but I can see good
arguments against that as well.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Debian.
I use tmda, but not in challenge-response mode. I find it useful for
its cryptographic hash-address system and the autowhitelisting code.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
What I'm referring to is the excerpts of C and E-Lisp source in those
manuals. They're clearly both documentation and software, even if you
don't believe that text can be both documentation and software.
I don't believe even the non-optional parts of the GFDL can be found
DFSG-free (as a software
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Aug 22, "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
> >is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether th
y, which asks whether the GFDL complies
with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether this software
over here is or is not software later, but figuring out whether the
GFDL is a DFSG-free licence for software is also important. That's
what the survey's asking about.
-Brian
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I think it
>> should probably be changed to keep the saved game in the user's home
>> directory. This was clearly done in order to try to pre
>> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed
>> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions
>> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it. It is simply a
>> matter of respect that is due the author.
>
> Respect is due; but it
x27;t GPL-compatible. On the other hand, if he left the license free
and simply asked that distributors not make such changes, that would
be free and at least somewhat reasonable.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
10 matches
Mail list logo
