Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:57:22PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> debian/copyright also includes upstreams response to my queries, which you
> conveniently failed to include. In that mail, Mark Kilgard makes it quite
> clear that the user certainly has a right to modify his code.
I'm sorry; the changelog didn't lead me to believe that debian/copyright
had changed. I'm sorry I made that assumption.
But let's look at that change:
Regarding bug#131997:
From: Mark Kilgard <mjk@nvidia.com>
To: "'Jamie Wilkinson'" <jaq@debian.org>
Subject: RE: GLUT license
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:29 -0800
Jamie,
An "an open bug against GLUT regarding the license"? That is so
Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against
a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day.
What would it mean for someone to not have the "right to modify
the code"? Are you saying I'm going to keep someone from editing
GLUT source files on their own hard drive? Exactly how would I do that?
Better yet, why would I even care?
I wrote GLUT to make it easy for anyone to learn how to program in OpenGL
and make a cool demo that can port easily, etc. I have absolutely no
interest
in some your "social contract" or whatever your agenda happens to be. If
GLUT is useful, make it available; if your ideology gets in the way of
that, not my problem.
- Mark
So what does this change? I still don't know if we could get sued for
changing glut_teapot to produce a Debian swirl. We don't care about
modifying GLUT source code on the hard drive; we need to know we can
modify it and distribute it.
--
David Starner / Давид Старнэр - starner@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."
Reply to: