pax being DFSG
>On Sat, Nov 8 1997 4:32 +0100 Richard Braakman writes:
>> David Frey <david@eos.lugs.ch>:
>> pax-2.1-3
>I've already filed a bug report on ftp.debian.org that pax is not
>DFSG-compliant and should be removed.
>
>[Recap:
> Licensing
>
> Copyright (c) 1989 Mark H. Colburn.
> All rights reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> provided that the above copyright notice is duplicated in all such
> forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other
> materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the
> software was developed by Mark H. Colburn.
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>
>This means that I'm not allowed to *change* the source code. I've already
>got a bug report that pax dumps core when fed with a .tar.gz file...
>
>pax currently compiles on a hamm (although you get warnings even without
-Wall),
>so I could recompile and upload it into contrib if this is really wanted.
>Opinions?
Personally I think you misunderstood it. It seems very BSD like to me.
Also, considering that PAX is needed according to posix, and the MLS-CMW
machines we used at work, had spax (a secure version of pax, which knows
about security labels, is an obviously modified version of pax) I think it's
allowed. But then again this is all conjecture. :)
shaya
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: