Re: pax being DFSG
On Sun, Nov 09, 1997 at 07:00:23PM +0100, David Frey wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8 1997 22:38 +0200 Shaya Potter writes:
> > >On Sat, Nov 8 1997 4:32 +0100 Richard Braakman writes:
> > >> David Frey <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > >> 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
Isn't modifing the source one use of the source form??? This licence
allows use of the source the package licenced.
> 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').
Why? It is not defined within the licence what 'use' is. I'm not a lawyer, but
I know that basic rule is that you can do only what is explictly allowed, And
here the programmer has allowed use of source, so do we have a problem?
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .