Santiago Vila quotes: > Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to > distribute the modified code. Modifications are to be distributed as > patches to released version.
And writes: > Appended to this, in the copyright file, there is an email from the > Debian maintainer asking whether it is ok for Debian to distribute this > package as an .orig file plus a patch, and the answer from the author was > "The above scheme is OK with me". > [ The way this is currently worded, license seems Debian-specific ]. Since the license already grants permission to distribute patches, the email is redundant. The problem is that the license (even with the email) does not grant permission to distribute binaries compiled from patched code. This is because such binaries are themselves modified versions of the code. A strict reading of this license would cause one to conclude that binaries may not be distributed at all. > If it is not Debian-specific, it is *unreasonable* to ask the author to > reword the license so that permission to distribute modified versions is > allowed as long as the original is distributed as well? I think it is always reasonable to politely request improvements in such licenses. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
