Re: Possible copyright violation wrt SNNS
On 23-May-00, 00:56 (CDT), Mike Bilow <mikebw@colossus.bilow.com> wrote:
> This would be my position: once you edit in the "debian" subdirectory, you
> are modifying the source tree. I don't see any way of satisfying the
> license other than by distributing source patches and letting the user
> build, as is done with Pine. This is annoying at best, and the Pine
> license is actually one of the principal motivations for Mutt.
There's (possibly) two issues: distributing modified source, and
distributing a binary that was built from the modified source. Debian
is okay on the former: we distribute the upstream source + patch. We're
not okay on the latter. But most licenses that restrict the former also
restrict the latter (or don't mention it at all, which is equivalent, in
my opinion).
later
Steve
Reply to: