[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: It's now DFSG compliant? I think yes but...

On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 04:38:14PM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 05:25:16PM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > 
> > > -----Forwarded message from Norman Ramsey <nr@cs.virginia.edu>-----
> > > 
> > > source and include this COPYRIGHT file.  You may modify noweb and
> > > create derived works, provided you retain this copyright notice, but
> > > the result may not be called noweb without my written consent.  
> > 
> > This makes it imposssible for us to distributed a patched version
> > of noweb.  Non-DFSG afaik.
> No, it forces us to rename it.  Not non-DSFG, just borderline.  Perhaps
> encouraging him to modify the terms to simply require prominant notice
> that is is a changed version....

No, it is DSFG compliant.
You only need to use a different name for the binary package, while the
source tarball can be the same:

source: noweb
binary: noweb-d

(-d or whatever you like :-) I just suggest to add something at the end
and not at the beginning of the name, for listing purposes.)

| fpolacco@icenet.fi    fpolacco@debian.org    fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Líder Minimo del Pluto    -     Debian Developer & Happy Debian User
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> more than 33 months are needed to get rid of the millennium. [me]

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: