Re: Bug#1184: kermit blurb in postinst inappropriate
email@example.com (Bill Mitchell) said:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Ian Jackson) said:
> > However, it seems that our users want kermit. Sigh. Is there a free
> > replacement that's any good ?
> I've seen a couple of kermit-alikes, but not for quite a while.
> The ones I used years ago had problems of one sort or another,
> as I recall. Kermit has been a mainstay for me for over
> ten years. It's the program of choice for serial comm for many
> people for approximately the same reasons the vi editor is so
> popular -- it works well, and it's available nearly everywhere.
> As far as it being free -- There's neither restriction nor fee for
> either personal or commercial use. What's restricted is commercial
Which I interpret to mean that it's Ok for Kermit to be on the ftp site.
> Anyhow, Frank seemed inclined to loosen up a bit in that brief
> response he sent to the debian-bugs post I copied to him. I
> inferred that he might allow us to put kermit binaries on the
> CDROM, with downstream distribution still governed by their
> copyright (no commercial distribution). I don't know whether
> he might want to restrict us to distributing binaries only
> by CDROM -- seems like a possibility.
I've had conversations w/ Frank on a couple of occasions, and have
watched his responses in comp.protocols.kermit.misc about Columbia's
licensing policy, I doubt that they are going to change their position
> Do we want to continue to carry a debianized kermit package on the
> ftp site if they object to us doing that?
Two points. First, if Columbia objects to us having Kermit on our ftp
site, then we take it off the site. Period. Secondly, it has been my
understanding that they don't object to Kermit being on the ftp sites,
it's when those sites get included on someone's CD-ROM that Columbia
gets upset. The discussions on c.p.k.m several months ago seemed to
offer the ftp sites (like sunsite.unc.edu) the option of making sure
that the Kermit code was not on any CD-ROMs. It was the site admins
that didn't want to accommodate this and agreed to pull it altogether.
> Do we want to put a binary-only distribution on CDROM if they'll allow
> it? Perhaps with a source package which just contains a README file
> explaining the situation and referring readers to the columbia ftp site?
> I try not to be argumentative or abrasive when I'm negotiating (and
> my conversations with Frank had the 'feel' of negotiations). I'm
> not always the most diplomatic person in sight, though (in case there's
> anyone around who hasn't noticed). Perhaps someone else would be a better
> choice to discuss this with Frank in a couple of weeks. It'd need to
> be someone who could phone him, I think. Last time around, he
> wanted to take an email conversation to the telephone after a
> couple of exchanges.
As I mentioned earlier, I have had a couple of conversations w/ Frank
about how CMHC Systems handles licensing of Kermit. (We distribute it
with our application. Both MS-Kermit and C-Kermit.) I'm willing to
talk to Frank about this. Though in our last conversation he suggested
that they might be producing a CD-ROM of their own. Sounded like it
was going to contain a new edition of the Kermit book(s) and the latest
sources, in addition to the executables. If we can't get them to agree to
let us include Kermit on our CD-ROM then maybe we should try to get our
Debian-ized package on their's!?
Charles A. Stickelman <email@example.com>
Owner, Practical Network Design
9 Chambers Road
Mansfield, OH 44906