Re: pax being DFSG
On Sat, Nov 8 1997 22:38 +0200 Shaya Potter writes:
> >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.
[...]
> Personally I think you misunderstood it. It seems very BSD like to me.
Yes, but only like: the standard BSD license goes like this:
Copyright (c) The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
^^^^^^^^^^^^
are met:
[...]
So, I can modify (e.g. patch) BSD-licensed sources, but I can't modify pax.
(I read `use in source form' as `you're allowed to compile it').
AFAIK is the same problem that we had with ncurses.
> Also, considering that PAX is needed according to posix,
yes, unfortunately.
David
--
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: