Re: License of ROOT: acceptable for non-free?
Peter Palfrader <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> > Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
> > versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
> > question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for
> > Debian to distribute packaged binaries of Root, would that be sufficient
> > for it to go into non-free?
> Being unable to not fix security issues in a timely manner is a Bad
> Thing. We should not support, endorse or otherwise support such
> software. Not even in non-free (which is not part of Debian proper).
I'm not saying I disagree, but AFAICR there's already plenty of
software in non-free that forbids modification...