I appreciate the suggestions.
0) Please can you point out the AT&T source code released under a
Debian-compliant license. This might eliminate the need for any more
discussion.
(If it refers to Doug Blewett's contributions to the X11 widget sets? I'm
not that
confident I can stretch the precedent
> A user needs to
> be able to modify the software, period, without having to take any other
> action to enable them to perform that action legally.
>
Is this Elie's opinion or is it clearly stated in the Debian Free Software
Guidelines?
Either way, the AT&T source code agreement section 4.2 sta
> I don't rule out someone distributing software licensed with the
> current license as part of non-free; if a maintainer wants to jump
> through whatever hoops are required, they are free to do so. I
> think if you got rid of the requirement to resubmit patches, there
> would be a better chance of
> The freedoms required by Debian include the freedom for someone to
> set up a consultancy business and deliver custom-modified versions
> of any Debian component to his customers .. without having to take
> any other action to enable them to perform that action legally.
Yes, if "delivering custo
>
> It requires that you share the source code *with whomever you give
> binaries to*. It does not require you to share the source code with
> A just because you give binaries to B. (However, if B wants to share
> the source code with A you have to accept that).
>
> --
> Henning Makholm
You are
5 matches
Mail list logo
