Re: FWD: Bug#121916: analog should be in non-free

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
> > copy of the program.  Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
> > if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
> > violating the license, and that makes analog a non-DFSG-free program.
> 
> Could you quote me the paragraph of the DFSG that says anything at all
> about selling a CD with a single package on it? I don't see it, all I
> see if the section dealing with selling an aggregate distribution of
> software, which I quoted in my message.

Of course it's number 1:

   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. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for
   such sale.

Certainly *some* aggregate distributions don't have a problem, but
others do.  To meet test one, *all* distributions must meet the test,
not just only some, and certainly not just only Debian.

Suppose I want to make an aggregate distribution of several programs
all distributed under an analog-like license.  Then that CD *would*
have a significant restriction on the price of the distribution of the
aggregate, which is not allowed by number 1.

What's going on here is that analog is ok, under your argument, if
it's in a world of software that is, the rest of it, not requiring
this "only a reasonable fee" rule.  That should make clear the
problem: if everything were done like analog does it, we wouldn't have
free software at all.  So analog is piggybacking off the freeness of
other software.

(Nothing here is intended to impugn Stephen; I'm just explaining what
the problem is from a free software standpoint.)

Thomas