On Saturday 14 July 2007 12:01, Robert Millan wrote:
> To be honest, I have to say that I don't like the possibility of my code
> becoming non-free. That said, I always find it a reasonable compromise to
> allow this for the sake of merging the code upstream when the upstream
> maintainers require it.
Although I too love FSF-free software, I personally wouldn't mess with the
licensing for a not so major patch like this is. On the other hand, it'd be
distributed as a separate dpatch so it'd be easy for anyone to redistribute
or rebuild the package without it.
--
Magnus Holmgren magnus@kibibyte.se holmgren@lysator.liu.se
Debian libspf2 maintainer (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311533&id_secret=22111249-e7a797
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> To be honest, I have to say that I don't like the possibility of my code
> becoming non-free. That said, I always find it a reasonable compromise to
> allow this for the sake of merging the code upstream when the upstream
> maintainers require it.
Although I too love FSF-free software, I personally wouldn't mess with the
licensing for a not so major patch like this is. On the other hand, it'd be
distributed as a separate dpatch so it'd be easy for anyone to redistribute
or rebuild the package without it.
--
Magnus Holmgren magnus@kibibyte.se holmgren@lysator.liu.se
Debian libspf2 maintainer (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311533&id_secret=22111249-e7a797
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com