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 <email@example.com>-----
> > >
> > > 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:
(-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.)
| firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
| 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
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .