On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 +0000 Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote: > >>On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 +0000 Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > >>>[...] As Craig said, the act of putting > >>>a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to > > >>>licence > >>>changes. > >>Can you give a reference for that, > >smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example. It went into non-free > >while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel > >compiler (and is now in main). > > If RMS negotiated it becoming GNU Eiffel, I doubt it was "the act of > putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself" did much to > make the change. Probably less than normal, even. I think human > dialogue has to be given nearly all the credit for licence changes.
Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my opinions more favourably or something such. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
