On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Lior Kaplan wrote:
Sigh... I appreciate your following up with gatech, but would like
to have not been surprised at the ITP ! I've been building new
3270 packages continually because I require it for my daily work.
(see 3270.bitgnome.net)
I have been in contact with Paul, and awaiting some clarifications
from him on license issues before once again uploading new packages.
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 02:07:07 +0300
From: Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Fwd: licensing of the x3270 code]
Hi,
The x3270 package was previously removed from the archive due to
licensing issues (see #248853 for details).
I opened this ITP after the 5250 code was removed from the upstream
package. Also, I'm waiting for a clarification about one of the
licenses, before uploading.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: licensing of the x3270 code
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:42:09 +0300
From: Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: George Harker, Director of Technology Licensing
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi George,
Can you clarify the meaning of "public use" in your copyright statement
here: http://x3270.bgp.nu/license.html
"Copyright ?? 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA
30332. All Rights Reserved. GTRC hereby grants public use of this
software. Derivative works based on this software must incorporate this
copyright notice."
The issue is whether your "public use" conforms to the OSI open source
definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php).
I'd like to distribute it in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, since
there are requests for this software.
--
Rick Nelson
<Culus> Ben: Do you solumly swear to read you debian email once a day and
do not permit people to think you are MIA?
<Ben> Culus: i do so swear
