Re: ARRL's LoTW with Debian Sarge
- To: debian-hams@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: ARRL's LoTW with Debian Sarge
- From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:55:19 +1000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20031018075519.GA25457@cloud.net.au>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-hams@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20030929203513.GA6134@localhost>
- References: <E1A1C7k-0002pa-00@penngrove.fdns.net> <20030922214438.GA24702@risingsoftware.propagation.net> <3F7059A5.30000@debian.org> <20030924034717.GB6582@enc.com.au> <20030926134317.GB31857@toontown.erial.nj.us> <3F7449D1.3070900@debian.org> <20030926184413.GA26642@n7xy.net> <20030929203513.GA6134@localhost>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:35:13PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> As for rationale, my assumption is that ARRL did not want to exclude
> proprietary or Free software authors from using the library. A BSD
> style license would seem an obvious choice here.
Just to follow-up on this discussion of a few weeks ago, now that I'm
getting back on top of my packages.
At a glance it seems that the tqsllib license is mostly BSD, including
the old advertising clause. I don't know whether this is acceptable to
Debian and how we deal with it, so I've asked debian-legal.
tqsllib builds OK, so I'll create the packages asap and publish a URL
for anyone who wants to try them. I can't upload until the license
situation is clarified though.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: