Hello again, On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:01:20PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:02:02PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > This is part of my distribution agreement with the > > university - I am not allowed to distribute the software to > > companies without a fee (which mainly goes to the university, and > > must be priced comparable to other commercial software). > > The univ. considers itself to be a copyright holder, and this > > was the only way to get any distribution rights." > > > > He didn't answer the non-free question yet, though. > > Huh? That's an answer to the non-free question, right there.
AFAICT, he just states that his program is commercial ie non-free, with the right to distribute. The part he wasn't responding to was this: "We must have at least the possibility to adjust the installation process to the FHS and Debian policy, that would mean that I would distribute the original source along with a patch to account for the needs of the Debian Packaging System, and a ready to install .deb-binary." (I see that I wrote 'source' instead of 'binaries', my fault) Do you think his statement above along with the license is enough so that inclusion into non-free is alright? thanks, Michael