On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 08:51:57PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's free as it seems from the first view. The second view tells
> > you it's non-free, unfortunately.
> >
> > Nevertheless I'm packaging it right now.
>
> You ask Martin not to work on elvis because it's non-free but then
> announce you're working on the non-free vile? I'm confused.
This might look confusing but the situation is different as
the author of vile is aware of the unfreeness and distributes
new parts under the GPL.
"the bulk of vile _cannot_ be covered by the GPL due to murky origins and
previous copyrights. however, the code that i have written (and i suspect
this is true of contributions made by others as well) was written to be
published, and to be shared with others. please respect this. see the top
of main.c for the restrictions put on the original MicroEMACS code upon
which vile was based."
This is bad, too, but it's not that bad as with a package where the
author could change the copyright but does not even re-act to get
in discussion with us.
Am I still acting unlogical? Maybe...
Regards,
Joey
--
/ Martin Schulze http://home.pages.de/~joey/
/ *** Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows], [EMAIL PROTECTED] /
/ repartitioning Disk for Linux ... /
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
