On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 10:38:16PM +0200, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 02:01:42PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > Without even looking at them, I can tell you the following:
> >
> > 1) *if* the packages comply with dist.html, they will _never_ get into
> > potato.
> > 2) If they don't comply with dist.html, you will not be allowed to
> > distribute them.
> >
> > It's basically a lose/lose situation. If you want dist.html-compliant debs
> > for your own use or for unofficial use, that's fine. But they will never go
> > into debian, because they are in gross violation of debian's packaging
> > policy, and also there are already source packages for these programs in
> > debian.
> >
> 1. I do not want them in potato, they may go into woody later, see below.
> 2. We all know.
>
> I know the source packages in potato. The produced debs do not comply with
> dist.html, I would not use them, e.g.: no /var/qmail/bin, nofiles replaced by
> nogroup.
The license only covers distribution -- since the produced debs are not being
distributed, the license does't apply to them.
I wouldn't use them either, and I don't use them. But if you want to do a
binary distribution you're going to have to get Dan's approval to do what
you've done.
--Adam
