On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 12:09:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > > > > While I find licenses with patch clauses odious, they fall within the > > > limits > > > of the DFSG. > > > > I think not. > > I mean: I think not if a patched binary may not be distributed. > The fact that mirror is written in perl should be irrelevant here. > There is a source and a .deb, like in every package. >
The patch exception in the DFSG allows software that restricts modifications to patches only so long as we can distribute binaries built from the modified sources. But in the case of mirror, there are no binaries. So we distribute a deb that patches the script at install time instead. Consequently, this arrangement might allow some otherwise non-free software in Debian so long as it allowed redistribution and didn't have any binaries. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
