Re: Would this comply with DFSG?

Previously James Troup wrote: > My original bug report on the subject was #14xxx era. How long do we > wait before chucking something in non-free? e.g. Should we still be > awaiting resolution on the GPL + Qt linked problem? At least until the maintainer is aware of the problem. When I took over

Re: Would this comply with DFSG?

James Troup writes: > Oh, good, someone chuck vim in non-free, if it's license hasn't > changed then. I wrote: > I know nothing about the license on 'vim', or on most Debian's other 2000+ > packages, except that someone at some time judged them DFSG compliant. I'm > not about to read through them

Re: Would this comply with DFSG?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > James Troup writes: > > Oh, good, someone chuck vim in non-free, if it's license hasn't > > changed then. > > I know nothing about the license on 'vim', or on most Debian's other 2000+ > packages, except that someone at some time judged them DFSG compliant. I'm > not

Re: Would this comply with DFSG?

Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Previously James Troup wrote: > > Oh, good, someone chuck vim in non-free, if it's license hasn't > > changed then. > > Hey, hold on! It so happend I'm currently discussing the vim license > with its author (Bram Moolenaar) at the moment, and I have