Re: Change in ispell's copyright -> nonfree?
On 11-Dec-2001 David Coe wrote:
> Upstream ispell 3.2.x has made the following change in its copyright
> (compared to 3.1.20, which we currently distribute).
>
> This sounds nonfree to me; am I wrong? If he were to change that
> "must" to a "should," would it then be DFSG-compliant? If not, what
> changes would you suggest?
>
nah, this is just a stronger version of the apache advert clause it seems.
Debian is exempt as are most people who would actually use and ship ispell
(word processors, mail clients, etc).
Reply to: