Fabien Ninoles writes: > I know that's don't make it able to go in main, but I would like > to know what you think about the implications of such license.
And quotes: > 1. section 3c of the Artistic license, reguarding renaming executables > for distribution, is not a valid option, for section 3 I think this is ok because of 3a and 3b. > 2. You must redistribute the ENTIRE kdrill package (determined by the > distribution from ftp.bolthole.com), if you choose to redistribute it, > including all copyright, documentation, < source code, and any other > types of files This is essentially a patch clause. I think this could go into main, but I would suggest that the author consider the GPL or the LGPL. The Artistic is not a well drafted license, and his modifications do not improve it. I'm not at all sure that this license, though DFSG compliant, accomplishes his goals. -- 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.
