Re: AT&T source licence?

To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: AT&T source licence?
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:00:40 -0800
Message-id: <[🔎] 20000303190040.B12384@kitenet.net>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 200003031500.QAA09709@ezili.sis.pasteur.fr>; from bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr on Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 04:00:21PM +0100
References: <[🔎] yahitz4m7h3.fsf@embla.diku.dk> <[🔎] 200003031500.QAA09709@ezili.sis.pasteur.fr>

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I agree it is for the "non-free" archive. But does anyone see a larger problem, which would prevent it to get into Debian?

The non-free archive is not part of Debian.

-- 
see shy jo

Reply to:

References:
- Re: AT&T source licence?
  - From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
- Re: AT&T source licence?
  - From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: real ksh available as sources
Next by Date: Is this good enough for non-free?
Previous by thread: Re: AT&T source licence?
Next by thread: Re: AT&T source licence?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread