Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?

[Darren Benham <gecko@benham.net>]

I agree, the NPL license isn't a package we'd want other's to emulate (say,
over GPL) but I'd say keeping the source packages around "long after" is a bit
of an exageration.
Only 6 months is required after we put out a new version, and if we keep a
3/year release cycle, that's only 2 months beyond the next release.  We don't
have a way to keep the previous releases source tree around?

On 12-Aug-98 Richard Braakman wrote:
> This means that if we distribute modified versions of an NPL'd
> program, we're going to have to keep source packages around long after
> we have replaced the binaries with new versions.  We have no mechanism
> in place for this.
> 

----------------------------------
http://benham.net/index.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++ E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--)
O M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++
 DI+++ D++ G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
----------------------------------