Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?
*- Darren Benham wrote about "Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?"
| 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?
|
Well, bo got nuked from ftp.debian.org as soon as hamm was released.
Although this has been acknowledged as a mistake it appears there is
no true mechanism in place to insure this. Others have put bo mirrors
up but it is not on the 'official' Debian distribution channel.
| 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.
| >
|
--
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,
because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes."
- unknown
Mechanical Engineering servis@purdue.edu
Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: