Re: RFS: spim

To: Jim Larus <larus@microsoft.com>
Cc: "debian-legal@lists.debian.org" <debian-legal@lists.debian.org>, Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFS: spim
From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:59:05 +0800
Message-id: <[🔎] e13a36b30911111759s50437f0ey22614892931c24e8@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] E5783C44E1A1AC458D86ACE98410FA15135B210E@TK5EX14MBXC118.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <200910190105.35230.macoafi@gmail.com> <e13a36b30910182322v7c59d517n40ff1cd323c4c11@mail.gmail.com> <87y6n7esns.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <[🔎] 200911111336.03335.macoafi@gmail.com> <[🔎] 87ws1wy9ji.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <[🔎] 87ocn8y7gy.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <[🔎] E5783C44E1A1AC458D86ACE98410FA15135B210E@TK5EX14MBXC118.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Jim Larus <larus@microsoft.com> wrote:

> OK, let's make this simple.
>
> The Debian project has permission to distribute spim and xspim.
...
> Is this sufficient?

Great, thanks!

Some permission to modify and distribute modified versions would be
useful in the  case a bug needs to be patched in a stable release.

More importantly, Mackenzie, I imagine Ubuntu will want the same
permissions as Debian?

> I'm planning on changing the license in the next release -- but not GPL, probably BSD or MIT.

That would be much much better.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- RE: RFS: spim
  - From: Jim Larus <larus@microsoft.com>

References:
- Re: RFS: spim
  - From: Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com>
- Re: RFS: spim
  - From: Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>
- Re: RFS: spim
  - From: Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>
- RE: RFS: spim
  - From: Jim Larus <larus@microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: RE: RFS: spim
Next by Date: RE: RFS: spim
Previous by thread: RE: RFS: spim
Next by thread: RE: RFS: spim
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread