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
Hi *,
[Sorry if this is the wrong forum - I thought this is the easiest way
to reach the snns developers]
I took over the snns packages for Debian a while ago. Originally I only
wanted to fix some problems but as snns seems to be quite mature to me
and I do not expect much work in maintaining
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
On 2000-05-23 at 08:37 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
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
I've been doing sparc binary builds for non-free, and reading the
copyright/changelog files as I go. I have a question wrt SNNS.
From the license:
In contrast to the GNU license we do not allow modified copies of our
software to be distributed. You may, however,
Package: snns
Severity: important
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:49:54PM -0500, Stephen R. Gore wrote:
I've been doing sparc binary builds for non-free, and reading the
copyright/changelog files as I go. I have a question wrt SNNS.
From the license:
In contrast to
I feel that there may be a very real chance that the copyright holder
might accept the changes into upstream. But I doubt it could be done
in time for release.
Torsten, have you had contact with upstream? Does this sound feasible?
Other than that possibility, Mike's suggestion seems to me to
That is not correct. Qt has a similar restriction, however, I believe it is
DFSG free.
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:38:37PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:51:56PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
I think there is no question you have to get it out of Potato as things
stand.
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:45:01PM -0500, RudeSka wrote:
That is not correct. Qt has a similar restriction, however, I believe it
is DFSG free.
While the QPL requires patch files to be used for source code changes, it
also allows you to distribute binaries built from modified source code
9 matches
Mail list logo
