On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:20:39PM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote: > [...] > > Try this Gedanken-experiment: would you still consider the license to be > violated of the files were named *.rom in the package and then renamed > as *.bin by the postinst script? If so why do you think that a slightly > different way of achieving exactly the same result violates the license? > How about if the package contained the original C header files, and the > postinst script generated .bin files from those?
That would sort out 'distribution', but the license says 'usage' must be done as *.rom. However, then we wouldn't be violating upstream license since it is up to the user to illegaly use the package. -- Robert Millan (Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\ (kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution))
