On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:17:59 +0100 JackTheDipper <gnome-color-chooser@punk-ass-bitch.org> wrote: > JackTheDipper wrote: > > Holger Levsen wrote: > > > >> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic: > >> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package. > >> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gnu.ai.mit.edu> > >> # > >> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can > >> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License > >> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality. > >> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available. > >> > >> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is > >> not approriate for legalize. > >> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main. It is perfectly acceptable in main - that phrase refers to the fact that the code is licenced, not public domain. Free software does not have to be freely available in terms of "change without any restrictions" - changes to GPL software is specifically allowed ONLY under the strict copyleft restrictions of the GPL. "change without restriction" would allow GPL software to be made proprietary, as can be done with public domain code. If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see this notice: # This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public # License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext # functionality. # Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU # General Public License and is *not* in the public domain. This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp9nzdsFTbZP.pgp
Description: PGP signature