Re: Intent to package cforge and code-medic

["Phillip R. Jaenke" <prj@nls.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, John Goerzen wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:58:15PM -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
> > 
> > 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?

Actually, now that I look at it, it isn't. Wait and hear me out. *grin*
 
> > I don't remember the specific license - it's a basic,
> > you-may-not-modify-and-redistribute sort of thing, which is just like
> > lots of junk in non-free.  I am not interested in packaging this, so
> > this is an issue for whoever wants to.

And IIRC, Pine has the same thing. Yet we have pine-src. Why not
ccrusader-src? For those of you who don't use pine (how can you NOT have
used pine?;), there are three segments to the package. pine-src, pine-doc,
and pine-deb, if I remember correctly. Either way, you have to get a
seperate package that contains the DSC's for building a Debianized Pine.
Why not do the same for Code Crusader? We can distribute any necessary
modifications to the code as a seperate package, with 'suggested'
dependencies. 

In fact, this is well within the license. From JX-1.1.19/LICENSE:

The Software may be freely redistributed in its original form.

  If you make modifications to the Software, you may distribute them in a
  separate package as a set of patches.  Modifications must not alter or
  remove this license or any copyright notices.  The Authors are granted a
  non-exclusive right to distribute and/or merge your modifications in
  future releases.

So, the answer is simple. ccrusader-src. ccrusader-deb. Two packages. One
with the original source, unmodified. The other with the Debian patches.
As you can see, this is well within the license. Unfortunately, as it
says, 'the authors are granted a non-exclusive right to distribute and/or
merge your modifications in future releases.' However, I honestly can see
no real problems there. If he merges patches, so much the better. If not,
no major loss either. Agree? Disagree? Comments?

      - Phillip R. Jaenke (prj@nls.net | InterNIC: PRJ5) -
 "something is not right, but i don't think it's wrong." --anon
     *-- PGP signed emails welcomed and preferred here. --*

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNr+c1sES8LwwGtVlAQGQgwQAyUbUYp2TMxk0+3xfCy3eiUDT2ASwZOG5
/R56jqHScZIgSSgKBYKwvwr2Y5EJoA9EsSAV2yWrH4+Hh9X+DkhHvNHMsPiT5OCe
twVXkcEwUCkG82LeGekgh0d1yNrbqPQVAAwMjArlV9ONMeSIjGNTk7aLvh2BiEiJ
5K436UtfUnY=
=6Mgz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----