Licenses on a few things in INN

bill davidsen davidsen at
Tue Aug 13 15:35:47 UTC 2002

In article <20020812204519.GA7766 at>,
Marco d'Itri <md at Linux.IT> wrote:
| On Aug 12, bill davidsen <davidsen at> wrote:
|  >To ask a stupid question, why doesn't Debian remove whatever offends
|  >them and leave this stuff where people can find it?
| Because we like having pristine source in our archive.

And you feel unable to determine that without someone telling you
something isn't free enough? As long as something is freely
redistributable and usable for personal use, do we really need to insist
on GPL vs. BSD vs. artistic license, etc.
|  >I don't feel strongly, but I don't like the precedent of removing stuff
|  >because it offends someone, rather than for any legal requirement.
| There is a quite strong legal requirement: that code is not free enough
| to stay in our main archive.

Really? You must read that differently than I, we distribute this in
compliance with the license as far as I can tell.

I used to license all the software I gave away as "unmodified source
only," and people did that along with patch files. That way no one ever
had any doubt what was original and modified code. Saved me a lot of
time looking at other people's code.

Putting the code where no one will find it is a sure way to find that it
has grown stale with disuse and doesn't work with some future version.

bill davidsen <davidsen at>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

More information about the inn-workers mailing list