On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:37:07 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: [...] > > Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me > > vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any > > changes have to be sent back. > > Interesting. I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this > is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory > note. Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload... > > If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or > intends that it not be), then is it really free? Mmmmh, this situation looks terribly similar to the Pine one... http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07-02-025-21-OP-CY-DB Please note that pine is distributed in non-free, where it belongs. http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/pine Please remember that IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp1BDHxf21NY.pgp
Description: PGP signature