On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 11:25:19AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > * Adopt potato postinst which applies patches at installation time to > > > be > > > in line with somewhat peculiar mirror license. > > > > I don't want to be nitpick, but if patches have to be applied at > > installation time, then it's non-free. > > > > Am I missing anything? > > > > If the software has a patch clause, we require that modified binaries can be > distributed. But this particular package doesn't have any binaries because > it's a perl script.
Strange. Do you mean this package has not a .deb? > While I find licenses with patch clauses odious, they fall within the limits > of the DFSG. I think not. -- "296f369435409adc2b28370b2ef3215c" (a truly random sig)
