Re: Licensing, was elvis package
rdm@test.legislate.com (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[🔎] 19980426181316.09838@hazel>:
> Alex Yukhimets <aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> > ^^^^
> > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
> > Sections
> > 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
> > interchange;
>
> Note that Sections 1 and 2 do NOT require that all the source be
> licensed under the same terms.
So what? You can't pick just the parts of the license you like.
> I don't see any requirement that all code be relicensed under the
> GPL, only a "source code available" requirement (and even then
> not always, for proprietary operating systems).
>
> [I've taken the liberty of not quoting the rest of the stuff which
> basically just re-makes this point.]
Ah, no. That was the part that made the point that
*if you distribute binaries*,
you have additional obligations. And Motif only fits if it's part of the
OS. Which, for Debian, it isn't.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: