On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 08:03:29PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:58:15PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:53:15PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 06:51:13PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> > >
> > > > I talked with the author a while ago, and tried to nudge him towards
> > > > the GPL. Since you cannot distribute changes, make sure to get him to
> > > > put the debian directory into the main sources (or something like
> > >
> > > This is unacceptable.
> >
> > No, just non-free - which may be unacceptable to some people.
> As I recall, Pine had the same problem, which is why we couldn't
> distribute it. How is this different?
The author seemed willing to incorporate the changes necessary in the
main program. So that we wouldn't be distributing a 'modified'
version.
Look - it's a bad solution, just like the Pine one is. But it is
non-free software, so, if people want to deal with it, they will have
to work around these things.
Maybe if the Debian maintainer is constantly sending this person
updates to the Debian stuff, and explains that, legally, they have to,
the author will realize that his license is, indeed, quite limiting,
and change it. Or maybe he will get fed up and not incorporate any
more modifications. So goes non-free software...
Ciao,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org