Re: Parted 1.6.21

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:05:57PM -0500, Mathieu Bruneau wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:40:40AM -0500, Mathieu Bruneau wrote:
> >
> >>Harley D. Eades III wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mathieu Bruneau <address@hidden> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I just updated the website for this new version with a direct link to
> >>>>it and a fix in the TOC order (CVS access was after Documentation but
> >>>>that wasn't the same as the document real order)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Nice, how about adding GNU/Hurd as one of the supported operating 
> >>>systems?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks
> >>>hde
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Bug-parted mailing list
> >>>address@hidden
> >>>http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
> >>>
> >>
> >>I added that information as well. A few time ago Sven asked for links to 
> >>different distribution's parted package but as for the gnu website I'm 
> >>not supposed to link to any page containing non-free software. So 
> >>most(if not all) distribution links are "not welcome" on gnu.org page.
> >
> >
> >Huh ? since when is parted packaged version for the different distribs
> >considered non-free ? There must be some reality strange thing going on at 
> >the
> >FSF if they forbid to link to the actual parted package page. What and they
> >releasing documentation under non-free licence anyway and such.
> >
> >Friendly,
> >
> >Sven Luther
> >
> >
> Well it could be my understanding of the Webmaster Documentation on the 
> gnu.org website... I'll recheck that later tonight!

If it is so, i question the interest of participating in this gnu project over
managing a fork or whatever, as i do for debian anyway. Anyone claiming
debian's parted package is in any way non-free is on serious crack. Don't know
about the other distribs, but i seriously doubt they include any non-free
code, which would be a violation of the GPL.

Friendly,

Sven Luther