Hi Paul >I didn't see a question in your mail :)
would a clear statement from them satisfy Debian standards? or should them relicense? >Is there any reason they can't relicense to something more standard? Not sure, big company, legal issues, difficult to track people for changing it, I don't really know I can quote from github issue this statement " I'm pretty sure Sybase had been asked in the (now distant) past and refused just because they didn't see the point. There is a "draft" version 2 of the license, but I'm guessing it can't just be adopted if it hasn't been adopted already. However, if someone really thinks they can convince Sybase otherwise, give it a try! One thing to remember, though, is that Sybase doesn't hold copyright over all of Open Watcom any longer. Much of the current system has new files that are "Copyright Open Watcom contributors" with no attribution to Sybase. Changing the license outright to something that isn't just a follow-on to the Open Watcom Public License might be tricky. " G.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
