On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 11:28:00PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Finally, the reason I'm making an issue of this: I think it's reasonable > for Ian to talk with Corel about the licensing of the Corel front end, > while other people have claimed that it's not.
It's perfectly reasonable for Ian to talk to Corel, but the only thing he can really get them to do is rewrite their program to use gtk instead of Qt (or something similar). We (I) just don't think there's any legal basis for him to force them too. Or that there really should be. Or that making a fuss about it is really good for anyone. The other thing to note is that if get_it and dpkg aren't a good combination, the modifications to the Apt copyright are probably misleading, since you don't get to use the exemption since Apt uses dpkg in much the same way as get_it does, itself. (If this is the case, it might be a worthwhile service to separate main into `gpl' and `free', so that the things you can just willfully mix and match (the GPL stuff) is more clearly separated from the stuff you have to have a doctorate in laws to deal with (GPL and anything else, anything else and anything else). This is at least plausible with the advertising clause removed from the BSD stuff...) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
pgpNAUTGwNPs6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
