Hi, On Friday 27 April 2007 21:08, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Thanks to the heads-up from Holger, I discovered that there are a few > packages from the non-free section of the archive. We need to make > sure the license of these packages do not hinder us in any way. > Anyone know? The binary packages in question are: > > crafty festlex-oald fglrx-driver gcc-4.1-doc gcc-doc-base gnupg-doc > kqemu-source scilab-bin scilab sun-java5-bin sun-java5-jre > sun-java5-plugin ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10 ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10 And I am also so stupid to further follow up on this :-) Remove these: sun-java5-bin, sun-java5-jre and sun-java5-plugin: I stopped reading the licence after reading "2. (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to run in conjunction with any additional software that implements the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;" - which prohibits us from shipping free java implementations. festlex-oald: "Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute this software and its documentation for research, educational and individual use only." - I want to (be able to) use skolelinux commercially. fglrx-driver: "(c) You may: ii) make one copy of the Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only. You must reproduce on such copy ATI's copyright notice and any other proprietary legends that were on the original copy of the Software;" kqemu-source: "Provided the QEMU acceleration module is not sold (for example on a CD or as a part of a commercial distribution based on Debian) you have my permission to package it." ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10 and ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10: part of the licence are written in japanese and translated to english. the part about the requierements for commercial use are in japanese and not translated. Distributing the fonts by non-individuals needs to be told upstream. Luckily, ttf-kochi-gothic and ttf-kochi-mincho are (the same) packages, which consists of free japanese fonts (where the one problematic font, naga10, was removed.) Unsure: crafty: "This program may not be used in whole, nor in part, to enter any computer chess competition without written permission from the author." :) I think we can live with that. More seriously, the author only gave explicit permission to Debian to distribute it on CDs and from debian-ftp-server, but as I see it, we are (a) Debian (subproject). Actually now that I think about it, maybe we should remove crafty too. School users might want to enter chess competitions... But legally we can/could keep it. scilab-bin, scilab: I'm not sure I fully understood the (dfsg-)problem with the licence, I think it's only because you cannot sell or commercially use _derived_ software. But as we ship the original, this is no problem for us. But please somebody else read the licence-text, if this is the only problem. Keep: gcc-4.1-doc, gcc-doc-base, gnupg-doc: GFDL. If we want to distribute non-free material (according to DFSG) like this, we can keep it. regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpJFVrcB_JHp.pgp
Description: PGP signature