Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > Stephen Gran <email@example.com> writes: > > > This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within > > > > 28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like > > > > to commit to that, and certainly the package would have to > > > > remain unreleased. > > > > > > It would also require the package(s) to be moved to the non-free > > > archive, I think. > > > > Then I think you've misread. Patch clauses and name change clauses are > > explicitly allowed under the DFSG > > They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when the > requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in question > is requiring a name change for even *unmodified* works, and that's > non-free. But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so far as it applied to the Debian package. Right? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part