Re: picasm license
Tomasz Wegrzanowski <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 10:53:20PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Tomasz Wegrzanowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > What is wrong with picasm license ?
> This is non-free license. But why do I have /usr/doc/picasm/copyright:
<after more fooling around getting the source packages for potato>
The license you quote does seem free to me. Apparently it is new
with version 1.6 of picasm. The one in slink still has the non-free
license I found.
The Debian changelog provides some clues as to why it is still in
non-free. The new license was added in a non-maintainer upload.
Presumably the one who did that decided that the package being in
non-free was not critical enough to move it to contrib behind
the back of the official maintainer (who apparently hasn't touched
the package for most of three years but has not officially orphaned
Henning Makholm "You propose to avoid dying? I will be
interested to hear the method you plan for this endeavour."