-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Cole <haldir@bnin.net> is thought to have
typed the following text on 2004-12-11:

> Unless it has changed lpr is the dreaded postcard ware ;-)
>
Which lpr? AFAIK both CUPS and LPRng are released under the GPL,
although LPRng has another optional license to choose from. You
probably mean Apsfilter.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk
AOLS fortune mod volume VII
Get yourself a copy at: <URL:http://www.etv.cx/~bartosz>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFBuvf1256ZyNYAOpkRAkLkAJd7G7Ag3dxGAIS03AjPw5 qTlwPPAJ9pRyPg
ZVJVD2sV0mHk05fFInK7FA==
=VgeA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:31:32 +0100, J wrote:
>
>
> So, if there are non-free packages with Slackware, why isn't anyone
> complaining?

Maybe those that are overly concerned are running Debian and not
Slackware.

Brad


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFBuv2OkDp4KjYna1ARAilPAKCSanWXpT9RHdimC4AiZ4 wHaAHBSACfVg5n
y3/x5yKeAPVONx9N5FL7hmI=
=Eh9d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

J Boehm <danube@cwcom.delete.net> is thought to
have typed the following text on 2004-12-11:
>
> So, if there are non-free packages with Slackware, why isn't anyone
> complaining?

Because those that don't want to use non-free software can simply
choose not to install those packages.

> Maybe they have become free simply by mass usage, not legally
> but technically. And there is always the ego-boost for the authors.

How does something become free technically, despite not being so
legaly? Isn't free-software al about the legal aspect? I really don't
see how mass usage helps making non-free software free.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk
AOLS fortune mod volume VII
Get yourself a copy at: <URL:http://www.etv.cx/~bartosz>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuwG4256ZyNYAOpkRAv95AJ9W4jYcY+KrQr65iU+jq0 Su0Tfx+gCdEQIb
M1fekEUxg2/L2LiuvL6EGmk=
=XlGq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Scott Cole (haldir@bnin.net) writes:
> On 2004-12-10, Daniel de Kok espoused the following:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:48:33 +0100, Damjan wrote:
>>> QT is free (as in GPL free), netscape + the included flash plugin and the
>>> java sdk (which is distributable) are the only non-free Slackware packages
>>> on the official CDs.... the only that I can remember
>>
>> Add XV and Pine to that (well, Pine is quasi-free .
>>
>> -- Daniel
> Unless it has changed lpr is the dreaded postcard ware ;-)
>
I knew there was something I was supposed to do.

Michael

0versight wrote:

> Moti wrote:
>> i know that i can download it, install it, do what ever i want with
>> that.
>> but "free software" is a complex term. 'fedora core' for example is not
>> "free software" beacuse some packges are copyrighted. debian on the other
>> hand, is completly free. so, what about slack?
>
> Not entirely no, KDE needs QT, which is not free software. As far as I
> know, that is the only non-free software Slackware includes in the
> distribution.

For several years, Qt has been available under both the GPL and the QPL, at
your choice.

--
Fred Emmott
(http://www.fredemmott.co.uk)