Re: Copyright question
Christian Schwarz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> > Non-free it is
> No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed)
> _binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free.
> What do the others think?
Before we go off half-cocked here:
1) I have e-mailed the author asking for permission to distribute
a bug-fixed software
2) We are distributing various programs without source already.
These programs are not fixable. (Example: xforms)
I really don't think that we should make lack of modification
permission to be a reason to not include in non-free (after all, isn't
this what non-free is for?)
John Goerzen | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming |
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .