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

Re: Cactvs-license

On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:28:05AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > However, you said that the author is resposive.  At a minimum, I think
> > > that the paragraph
> > > 
> > > > The tool set can be distributed as part of other non-commercial program
> > > > packages, but only in its original, unadapted form.  If anybody is
> > > > interested in providing the tools as integrated part of another
> > > > package, this must be negotiated.
> > > 
> > > has to go.  I don't think that special permission for Debian will
> > > work.
> > 
> > A requirement for special permission for Debian is ok in non-free,
> > if that special permission has been granted.
> Are there packages in non-free that have special permission for
> Debian?  Do you know any of their names?  I was worried about some
> practical problems, but am willing to be swayed by precedent.
> Regards,
> Walter Landry
> landry@physics.utah.edu

I believe Netscape 4.x is a prime example:  Upstream provides binaries
only.  Only AOL-Time-Warner can do security fixes (and have done so in
the past, there are at least two Debian Security Advisories in my
personal files).  And the permission to distribute is provided
specifically to Debian under a distribution license program which can
be revoked by Microsoft (indirectly).  Needless to say, it is in

This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.

Reply to: