Re: intent to package: mocalc
is 'do as you wish' or something similar not a 'license'? or is such a
general 'license' not dfsg-compatible? or is this a question more
appropriately posted in debian-legal@ ?
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Randolph Chung wrote:
> > the author has given all permission to 'do whatever they want' with the
> > program. after emailing the author, he has given permission to distribute
> > it under the GPL.. what is suggested? unconditional use, or GPL?
> i always try to get it in writing. The Debian policy seems to be that if
> there is no license, it can't be considered free.
> For GPL packages, the upstream source should contain a COPYING file with the
> standard GPL license. For public domain software, it should contain a
> similar file stating that this is so.
> Debian Developer <email@example.com>