On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:57:22PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: > debian/copyright also includes upstreams response to my queries, which you > conveniently failed to include. In that mail, Mark Kilgard makes it quite > clear that the user certainly has a right to modify his code.
I'm sorry; the changelog didn't lead me to believe that debian/copyright had changed. I'm sorry I made that assumption. But let's look at that change: Regarding bug#131997: From: Mark Kilgard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Jamie Wilkinson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: GLUT license Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:29 -0800 Jamie, An "an open bug against GLUT regarding the license"? That is so Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day. What would it mean for someone to not have the "right to modify the code"? Are you saying I'm going to keep someone from editing GLUT source files on their own hard drive? Exactly how would I do that? Better yet, why would I even care? I wrote GLUT to make it easy for anyone to learn how to program in OpenGL and make a cool demo that can port easily, etc. I have absolutely no interest in some your "social contract" or whatever your agenda happens to be. If GLUT is useful, make it available; if your ideology gets in the way of that, not my problem. - Mark So what does this change? I still don't know if we could get sued for changing glut_teapot to produce a Debian swirl. We don't care about modifying GLUT source code on the hard drive; we need to know we can modify it and distribute it. -- David Starner / Давид Старнэр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."