No I haven't asked permission but another Debian developer was going
to. I think I'll ask him how he's getting along with that.
If anyone is really worried about the license, they can download the
source, apply the Debian diffs and recompile it themselves. That is
completely legal.
--
Jaldhar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Here's how I understand the license. It forbids distribution of binaries
made from modified sources unless permission is given by the University of
Washington. That makes it ineligible for inclusion in non-free because
Debian won't distribute things that are on
Doesn't the license forbid that? Isn't that why it isn't an official
Debian package (not even non-free) anyway?
I'll be quiet now.
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:31:24PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Bart Szyszka wrote:
>
> > I could have sworn that a few weeks back someo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Bart Szyszka wrote:
> I could have sworn that a few weeks back someone posted about
> a DEB package for just pico (the text editor that comes with pine)
> that was separate from pine, but I can't find that post in the archives.
> Am I imagini
Hello,
I could have sworn that a few weeks back someone posted about
a DEB package for just pico (the text editor that comes with pine)
that was separate from pine, but I can't find that post in the archives.
Am I imagining things?
--
Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:4982727
B Grafyx http://ww
5 matches
Mail list logo
