On 1 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote: > Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote: > > > > > Non-free it is > > > > No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed) > > _binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free. > > > > What do the others think? > > Before we go off half-cocked here: > 1) I have e-mailed the author asking for permission to distribute > a bug-fixed software > 2) We are distributing various programs without source already. > These programs are not fixable. (Example: xforms) > > I really don't think that we should make lack of modification > permission to be a reason to not include in non-free (after all, isn't > this what non-free is for?)
Not exactly. non-free is not the place for doing illegal things :-) It just the distribution used for programs which have some restrictions on commercial distribution. Even the programs in non-free will have to comply with a few rules, as for example, we must be allowed to ship a modified binary. (Note, that this is something different from programs where no source is available but we are allowed to modify, i.e. hack, the binary.) Thanks, Chris -- Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don't know Perl? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA http://www.perl.com http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .