Thanks for your answers! On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 09:07:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > However, you said that the author is resposive. At a minimum, I think > > that the paragraph > > > > > The tool set can be distributed as part of other non-commercial program > > > packages, but only in its original, unadapted form. If anybody is > > > interested in providing the tools as integrated part of another > > > package, this must be negotiated. > > > > has to go. I don't think that special permission for Debian will > > work. > > A requirement for special permission for Debian is ok in non-free, > if that special permission has been granted.
OK, I'll ask him about this. > > Also, the phrase > > > > > You may adapt the functionality of the program to your local needs, > > > but you are forbidden to redistribute copies of the files comprising > > > the software which were altered in any respect. If you add a > > > valuable feature, or hunt down a bug, you are welcome to contact the > > > author by email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and the fix or feature > > > will be most certainly integrated into the one and only official > > > release. > > > > is worrisome, since that means that any security problems or serious > > bugs will kick it out of Debian, even if the fix is trivial. This is > > even more pressing since you said that the project has mostly stalled. > > This means that if there's a security problem or a "damages the user's > system" problem we'll have to replace the insecure package with an empty > package with a note explaining the conflict introduced by the license. That would be reasonable. > All in all, this doesn't sound like a great situation, but if enough > people value it, maybe it's worth putting some effort into it... We'll see. The program is a mixture of shared libraries, Tcl/Tk (with its own environment) and other stuff. I had a look at SuSE's rpm-package - they basically did a 'mv cactvs.tar.gz cactus.rpm' On the other hand, I read some other opinions on this package, and it seems to be quite alright. We'll see. I assume you don't mind that I forward your answers upstream? thanks a lot, Michael