Hey Ian,
Here is the thread.
Carter
----- Forwarded message from Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yotam Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: argus_2.0.0-1.1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi,
Sorry for the delay in processing this package, I've been pondering
the license for some time now. In any event, I'm afraid I don't
believe the license satisfies the DFSG. I posted to debian-legal[1]
with this view but there wasn't any replies, either positive or
negative.
Rather than let it sit in Incoming any longer I've decided to reject
it. You can either upload the package for non-free or try to stir up
a response on non-free and convince people (me, or some other
ftpmaster, for instance) that this license conforms to the DFSG.
--
James
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0104/msg00108.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:42 PM
> To: Carter Bullard
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IBM Public License and Debian Linux..... Not compatible?
>
>
> "Carter Bullard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have released some software under a modified IBM Public
> > License. The powers that be at Debian Linux are stating
> > that the license, and thus the IBM Public License, does not
> > meet their definition of "free". I've included the Debian
> > definition of "free" below. My modifications to the IBM
> > Public License are so slight that you can assume that my
> > license is equivalent to the IBM License.
>
> What are their arguments? Is there a mail thread on the web somewhere
> or something?
>
> Ian
>
