okay for non-free?

2001-06-09 Thread Eduard Bloch
Hi, could anyone comment the attached license? Is it suitable for non-free, or even contrib? -- UNACE-SOURCE v1.2b (extract-util) -- the source may be distributed and used, but I,Marcel Lemke, retain ownership of the copyrights to the source. --- WWW:

Re: okay for non-free?

2001-06-09 Thread Peter Makholm
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- UNACE-SOURCE v1.2b (extract-util) -- the source may be distributed and used, but I,Marcel Lemke, retain ownership of the copyrights to the source. --- We can distribute it, so non-free should be ok. We can't

Re: okay for non-free?

2001-06-09 Thread Uwe Hermann
Hi, On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 10:32:48AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: Hi, Hi Eduard, could anyone comment the attached license? Is it suitable for non-free, or even contrib? -- UNACE-SOURCE v1.2b (extract-util) -- the source may be distributed and used, but I,Marcel Lemke, retain

Re: okay for non-free?

2001-06-09 Thread Steve Greenland
On 09-Jun-01, 03:32 (CDT), Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, could anyone comment the attached license? Is it suitable for non-free, or even contrib? -- UNACE-SOURCE v1.2b (extract-util) -- the source may be distributed and used, but I,Marcel Lemke, retain ownership of the

Re: okay for non-free?

2001-06-09 Thread Sam Hartman
Steve == Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- Steve Is that the entirety of the license? If so, it can't even Steve go into non-free, because it doesn't allow binary You could presumably do the qmail style source package.

Re: okay for non-free?

2001-06-09 Thread John Galt
It looks like you're dealing with a source-only package in non-free like qmail or pine, unless you have an explicit blessing from the author that he meant distribute in binary form as a use. Contrib's out, though, since contrib needs to be DFSG free and dependent on something not in Debian