Henning Makholm writes: > 1: is a vaguely formulated emailed statement of intention legally > binding enough to be OK for the DFSG.
> 2: should we interpret the email as being "specific to Debian" simply > because the author made his statement in the context of a request > for clarification on behalf of the Debian maintainer? > In both cases I suppose arguments either way could be made. Depends on the exact wording of the email, I think. In this case, it reads in part: > Now, if we are to apply such a patch to the mirror script in the .deb > file (and hence in the .diff.gz), is that okay with you? To be clear, > this would mean that our mirror.pl would be different from your > mirror.pl, but the changes would be most clearly documented in the > .diff.gz and distributed also as patches to the released version. I > find your copyright file ambigous, in particular the paragraph > 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. I think I got the wording from you! Or at least some other Debian package you pointed me to! > Our scheme would be at the same time modified code, and patches to the > released version. > I would be glad if you could clarify whether this gets a nod up or down > from you. The above scheme is OK with me. [...] This seems to me to be Debian-specific. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
