• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

MainC

http://archive.gnewsense.org/gnewsense/pool/main/c/

http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/c/

Package Template

Footnotes

• [1] Version not specified, probably GPL v2.
• [2] Both versions: first and second are licenced under GPL version 2 or later.
• [3] PD = public domain.
• [4] Both versions: 5 and 5.1 are released under the terms of GPL version 2.

Licencing problems

Note: These are my personal opinions – I can be wrong – and it will be better if you read the licences by yourself.

• [why?] The licence does not allow us to modify location of one of the files included in the package, so it violates freedom 1 of the Free Software Definition.
• [why2?] The licence is "freely plagiarised from the 'Artistic Licence'", which doesn't belong to free software licenses as per FSF.

EDIT by crap0101: for [why2?] "cdrtools" package i've signed like free, because that seems not violating the gpl licence. You can use,copy, redistribuite and modify. Only, for modified version the licence's note ask you to change the name's package, and this is permitted by GPL because it not conflict with the central four freedoms. Also, this package is in the Free Software Directory http://directory.fsf.org/project/cdrtools/ and the last update was made at 30 Nov, 2005. So, the package's version that was checked, allready contain this note. this is an extract form http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them. [...]Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively block your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications."

EDIT2 by crap0101: refear to bug 108. It's closed! http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00108