On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:01:20PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:02:02PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > This is part of my distribution agreement with the
> > university - I am not allowed to distribute the software to
> > companies without a fee (which mainly goes to the university, and
> > must be priced comparable to other commercial software).
> > The univ. considers itself to be a copyright holder, and this
> > was the only way to get any distribution rights."
> > He didn't answer the non-free question yet, though.
> Huh? That's an answer to the non-free question, right there.
AFAICT, he just states that his program is commercial ie non-free,
with the right to distribute.
The part he wasn't responding to was this:
"We must have at least the possibility to adjust the installation
process to the FHS and Debian policy, that would mean that I would
distribute the original source along with a patch to account for the
needs of the Debian Packaging System, and a ready to install
(I see that I wrote 'source' instead of 'binaries', my fault)
Do you think his statement above along with the license is enough so
that inclusion into non-free is alright?