Re: Bug#261600: License violation
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:20:39PM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
> [...]
>
> Try this Gedanken-experiment: would you still consider the license to be
> violated of the files were named *.rom in the package and then renamed
> as *.bin by the postinst script? If so why do you think that a slightly
> different way of achieving exactly the same result violates the license?
> How about if the package contained the original C header files, and the
> postinst script generated .bin files from those?
That would sort out 'distribution', but the license says 'usage' must be
done as *.rom. However, then we wouldn't be violating upstream license since
it is up to the user to illegaly use the package.
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\
(kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution))
Reply to: