Re: Intent to package cforge and code-medic
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 18:51:13 -0600, David Welton wrote:
> I talked with the author a while ago, and tried to nudge him towards
> the GPL. Since you cannot distribute changes,
Are you sure that's still the case?
Quoting the release announcement (Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>):
:The license has been rewritten to explicitly allow patches to be
:distributed, as required by the Open Source model.
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 19:36:24 -0600, David Welton wrote:
> Code Crusader is not free software.
Is that still the case? Slashdot (admittedly, not the most reliable source
of licensing info) announced 1.2.0 as "open source".
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 21:26:27 -0500, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
> In fact, this is well within the license. From JX-1.1.19/LICENSE:
> The Software may be freely redistributed in its original form.
> If you make modifications to the Software, you may distribute them in a
> separate package as a set of patches. Modifications must not alter or
> remove this license or any copyright notices. The Authors are granted a
> non-exclusive right to distribute and/or merge your modifications in
> future releases.
> So, the answer is simple. ccrusader-src. ccrusader-deb. Two packages. One
> with the original source, unmodified. The other with the Debian patches.
I think you're interpreting "package" too literally. The way I read this is
that you cannot distribute a modified tarball; the regular Debian way
(unmodified upstream tarball + debianisation diffs) seems to be allowed.
Also, please distinguish between JX and Code Crusader. JX is non-free, but
Code Crusader might still be free (and thus suitable for contrib).
My impression is that the (latest versions of the) JX, Code Crusader and
Code Medic licenses need further study.
PATRIOTISM A great British writer once said that if he had to choose
between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would
have the decency to betray his country.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan