[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: AT&T source code agreement

On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 03:34:25PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> > I don't rule out someone distributing software licensed with the
> > current license as part of non-free; if a maintainer wants to jump
> > through whatever hoops are required, they are free to do so. I
> > think if you got rid of the requirement to resubmit patches, there
> > would be a better chance of a debian developer picking up the non-
> > free package.
> The license says you can just provide AT&T with a URL.
> Is that http://www.debian.org/distrib/something?
> Should we considered AT&T notified?
> End of discussion?
> I don't want to nitpick, but isn't that the very essence of this process :-)

As I said, if that's the only issue to worry about, it could go in
non-free. It sounds like you want it in main though, not non-free. The
requirements are completely different.

Elie Rosenblum                 That is not dead which can eternal lie,
http://www.cosanostra.net   And with strange aeons even death may die.
Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer             - _The Necronomicon_

Reply to: