Re: Why non-free (was Re: unzip - again)

2000-12-01 Thread Santiago Vila
unzip license changed from potato to woody. That's why it is in non-free in potato and in non-US/main in woody. BTW: The version in woody (for i386) supports encryption and works ok under potato because it was compiled under potato (i.e. no need to use glibc-2.2).

Re: Why non-free (was Re: unzip - again)

2000-11-30 Thread Jimmy O'Regan
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Chris Gray wrote: > I knew I had seen a better copyright somewhere: > > -- > Latest Release > > New features in UnZip 5.41, released 16 April 2000: > > > new BSD-like license > Yeah, that's why zip is in main. Unzip, however, st

Re: Why non-free (was Re: unzip - again)

2000-11-30 Thread Chris Gray
> "kmself" == kmself writes: kmself> on Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 04:52:51PM -0500, Chris Gray kmself> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> > "Carel" == Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Carel> unzip is not truly free, so it ain't part of Debian pure. Carel> Try

Why non-free (was Re: unzip - again)

2000-11-30 Thread kmself
on Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 04:52:51PM -0500, Chris Gray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > "Carel" == Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Carel> unzip is not truly free, so it ain't part of Debian pure. > Carel> Try adding non-free to your default deb line in your > Carel> /et