Hi, On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 17:17, Henning Makholm wrote: > > The license of a Debian component may not restrict > > any party from selling or giving away the software > > as a component of an aggregate software distribution > > containing programs from several different sources. > > + (But may prohibit selling the software itself alone.) > > The license may not require a royalty or other fee > > for such sale. > > This is, to the best of my awareness, the debian-legal consensus > interpretation. This would actually mean that we can continue to distribute LaTeX2HTML. :-) (I still volunteer to adopt it in main.) > The consensus, however, goes on to point out that an "aggregate > software distribution" may consist of the program in question plus a > Bourne shell implementation of "Hello, world", and the license *must* > allow such an aggregate to be sold for profit. > > In short, we accept "you may not sell this program alone" clauses, but > only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely > ineffective in practice. The upstream maintainer of the package in question suggested this by arguing that one can always charge for an aggregation (be it small as suggested above). I would really like to have a consensus about this issue until the sarge release for being sure about this when checking licenses. So DDs, please put a statement to this thread. I actually propose the adjustment of the DFSG. Therefore I need at least 5 sponsors for either (or each) of my formerly stated versions (A) and/or (B) (following the Debian Constitution: Standard Resolution Procedure). Remember that (B) seems to violate DFSG.8! Thanks in advance. bye, Roland
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part