Grant H. sirgr...@member.fsf.org writes:
After reviewing the copyright file[1] for the package yforth[2] I
thought that it did not qualify as free software.
Why do you say this? The intent of the author was clearly to be fully
permissive as long as attribution is retained.
For a fairly
A couple things, intent and what actually happens are two different
things. According to Debian legal (as I linked above) it currently does
not meet the DFSG which is the expectation it has to meet.
Regardless, I got a response from Luca and he is willing to re-license
it under a established
Grant H. sirgr...@member.fsf.org writes:
A couple things, intent and what actually happens are two different
things.
Of course I understand that. But what bothers me in this and other
cases is that you're asserting that it fails the DFSG without explaining
*how* you think it fails the DFSG.
Ok, well I am sorry if I bothered you. I honestly didn't come here
tostart a fight and maybe should have been more clear. I also agree that
if he is willing to change the license that makes for an easy solution.
But to answer your question as to why I think it is not dfsg free it is
in the
Package: yforth
Version: 0.1beta-23
Severity: serious
User: trisq...@trisquel.info
Usertags: trisquel, libreplanet
After reviewing the copyright file[1] for the package yforth[2] I
thought that it did not qualify as free software. I contacted the
debian legal list[3] and they informed me that
5 matches
Mail list logo
