Re: cc65 licensing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
|
| Correction: You don't want to understand that. It can be easily seen from the
| fact that you accused me of "intentional muddling with licenses" before even
| looking at the source code, that it is not your intention to understand what
| is going on. Fortunately, what you say is of absolutely no relevance. I have
| always opted against the inclusion of cc65 into Debian because of licensing
| issues, and given the trouble I had with other code that is part of Debian, I
| would be happy if cc65 would never become part of Debian. So actually we both
| have the same interest.
|
I like to think that this can be put in Debian's non-free section given a
slightly clarified license, which was the purpose of my original e-mail,
since I was unable to fully figure out what was covered under what, and
getting licensing exact is important. All I *could* tell was that some of
the compiler code may have come from the original compiler, but I had no
hints. It's certainly not illegal, but it did confuse me a bit. But I hope
that can be set aside, and now that the situation has been clarified we can
get the package at least into 'non-free'. It's just those four files that
contain pieces of the old code, correct? It's easy enough for me to say so
in debian/copyright.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFA3Jwj3ZWQ5WzMh1oRAovAAJ9zVrAf1yKTJ9UUTEOvwXwVzTsgpQCgosTn
/7AvtCMepEEVJmQL2Qu4f70=
=4ZOw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: