You are not logged in.

#1 2004-03-29 20:21:02

punkrockguy318
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2004-02-15
Posts: 711
Website

NonGPL Packages

Since Arch Linux is liscened under the GPL, I think any nonfree software should be places in a nonfree respatory, so it would be Current, Extra, and NonFree.  This way you can keep the main respetories open source.  That would plug things like java and flash into the nonfree.  What do you guys think?


If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.   1 Corinthians 13:2

Offline

#2 2004-03-29 20:41:16

StratoS
Member
From: Netherlands, the
Registered: 2004-03-28
Posts: 22
Website

Re: NonGPL Packages

that would be one of the reasons why i dislike debian.

it starts with putting the non-gpl packages into a diffrent sub class.
then you insert a message, that there not GPL and thus not true GNU free software.
after that it starts to be cool to say that your whole distro is pure GPL.
then you start to explain other people why it's so important to not only look at the OSS label but also if it's true GPL.
after that you get adopted by richard stallmen as his new son.

above is halfly ment as a joke. so don't take it to hard if your a true GPL purist.
but realy, should the fact that people want a pure GPL distro be the job of the distro, or the people?
i mean, if you think it's important to only run GPL, they you should probebly know what's GPL and what's not, and thus could do the job yourself.

(with "you" i don't mean the Topic starter. but simply a more generic You.)


Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." - Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961)

Offline

#3 2004-03-29 20:54:21

mcubednyc
Member
From: New York, NY USA
Registered: 2004-03-17
Posts: 120

Re: NonGPL Packages

What would be the purpose of separating out the closed-source packages?  I mean, what is gained by doing it that way?  I know Debian does it that way, but I thought that was a political thing.  If Arch users want to maintain a 100% OSS system, they can do that now ... I don't understand why another repository is necessary.


"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." - S. Jackson

Offline

#4 2004-03-29 22:20:27

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: NonGPL Packages

Archlinux as a whole isn't licensed under the GPL (it cant be), only the Arch specific programs/libraries like the Init Scripts, pacman, etc.

I did file a bug report a while ago asking for a "license" variable in the PKGBUILD (like Gentoo does), but the feature hasn't been added.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#5 2004-03-30 11:12:31

LB06
Member
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 435

Re: NonGPL Packages

I don't see the use of a seperate repository.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB