Re: Providing a non-free alternative to a free package
Gergely Nagy <email@example.com> writes:
> If it is obfuscated, then it is most probably not the preferred form of
> modification (and not the real source, but something derived from that),
> thus, them being GPL'd is invalid, and it's not even fit for non-free,
> as far as I see.
This is something I have to discuss with the upstream author (who also
sells the unobfuscated version). He probably would then make a specific
license which would allow its distribution, but he is not willing to put
the original source code under GPL.