Fabien Ninoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here a follow-up of my correspondence with Philip Brown, the upstream > maintainer of kdrill. Phil want to distribute kdrill under a modified > Artistic licence and his main concern is about redistribution of > modified binaries. It seems to me a kind of "configuration is ok, > but I want to control any other modifications".
If he succeeds in saying so in a license, it won't be DFSG-free. > > > b) full source code [binaries optional] > > > You may chose to provide source modifications, and binaries based > > > on those modifications. However, the original > > > source distribution must be present, in its entirety. I think that would qualify as being barely DFSG-free. It requires that pristine source goes on the binary CD images, but there is precedence that Debian can do that in some cases (tetex-src). I wouldn't expect Debian to approve of such a scheme unless developers agree that the benefits of having the package compensates for stuffing technically unnecessary sources onto the binary disks. But I'm not a developer myself, so I really can't tell. -- Henning Makholm
