Re: Licensing of package nauty
On 11274 March 1977, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license,
>> but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification
>> needed before it can be included in non-free?
> This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if
> you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence.
If its dfsg compatible then its fine for main.
The current license is idiotic but acceptable for non-free.
<pasc> the AMD64 camp is not helped by the list of people supporting it
<pasc> when nerode is on your side, you know you're doing something wrong