Re: Copyright question
On 1 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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?)
Not exactly. non-free is not the place for doing illegal things :-) It
just the distribution used for programs which have some restrictions on
commercial distribution. Even the programs in non-free will have to comply
with a few rules, as for example, we must be allowed to ship a modified
binary. (Note, that this is something different from programs where no
source is available but we are allowed to modify, i.e. hack, the binary.)
-- Christian Schwarz
Don't know Perl? email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .