On 23-May-00, 00:56 (CDT), Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This would be my position: once you edit in the "debian" subdirectory, you > are modifying the source tree. I don't see any way of satisfying the > license other than by distributing source patches and letting the user > build, as is done with Pine. This is annoying at best, and the Pine > license is actually one of the principal motivations for Mutt.
There's (possibly) two issues: distributing modified source, and distributing a binary that was built from the modified source. Debian is okay on the former: we distribute the upstream source + patch. We're not okay on the latter. But most licenses that restrict the former also restrict the latter (or don't mention it at all, which is equivalent, in my opinion). later Steve
