(-admin dropped; nothing in this reply needs to go there) On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 01:34:32AM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote: > On Mon, 11 April 2005, Richard A Nelson wrote: > > >> It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails > >> and instead the pacage was removed. > > > You've only read about the most recent issue... This has been battled > > for *many* years and the DFSG crew is growing more vigilant - at the > > expense of the pragmatists amongs us :(
If "pragmatism" is "I don't care whether a work is Free or not", you're in the wrong project. (No, really. Debian is about Free Software, and if that's so low a priority for you that you'll label is an "expense", you're really in the wrong place.) But if "pragmatism" is "I don't care whether I might get myself or the project sued by distributing something", you might be more at home with a warez group. :) That said, I see a license at http://x3270.bgp.nu/license.html. I don't know if there's any indication that some source files in the distribution are not, in fact, available under that license, but I wouldn't consider simply lacking a notice on a source file to be an indication of much of anything, as that license seems to claim to apply to the "x3270" package as a whole. On the other hand, I can't find any licensing information at all in the tarball itself, which at the very least isn't a good sign of the upstream author's licensing diligence. (Sorry for not spending the time to review #248853 in full, but the derisive, knee-jerk dismissal of legal issues at its start--a year ago, to be fair--puts me in little mood to read the thread much further. :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
