On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:31:38 -0300 (ART) Martin Marques <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:46:25PM -0400, linuxmaillists@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> No it has something to do with the function not being open > >> source or something like that. It was on another mailing > > > > That's not "stripped", that's "can't legally include". > > Then why isn't there a non-free repo, like Debian has? There are people who maintain a non-free (and also 'free but not in the USSA') repository. The 2600 case in the USA says Red Hat even giving you the URL to this might be considered an offence. You'll therefore have to ask someone else. Alan
