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 <email@example.com>:
> >> 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.
> > 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
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,
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .