On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:13:32, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
>   But when apply those patches, I don't know how to treat binary package
>   under FDclone 1.x's license.
> 
> Is FDClose under a Free or Open Source license?  If not, it needs a
> LICENSE tag.  Sorry, but I can't read the README.  I'm guessing there
> isn't a Free license because of your comment about binary packages,
> which wouldn't be problematic.

FDclone 1.x's license in README is unclear (see also pkgsrc's MESSAGE file).

...From my shaky memory...
What original author meant to say is that he can't support FDclone's user
who are using bainary package that he don't know how to compile with 
what compile option and how to modify source files.
So, he is glad to send those information if someone provide binary package.
And also want to write binary pakcage MAINTAINER's email address to source file,
So that binary pacakge's user can ask to binary package's maintainer
instead of original author.
But he don't apply coercion to do so.
And I don't know today's pkgsrc MAINTAINER did so or not.

FYI: FDclone 2.x's lisence (He try to more clearly than 1.0's)
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.eng.txt

--
"Of course I love NetBSD":-)
OBATA Akio / obata@lins.jp