Re: Why non-free (was Re: unzip - again)
>>>>> "kmself" == kmself <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
kmself> on Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 04:52:51PM -0500, Chris Gray
kmself> (cgray@nowonder.com) wrote:
>> >>>>> "Carel" == Carel Fellinger <cfelling@iae.nl> writes:
>>
Carel> unzip is not truly free, so it ain't part of Debian pure.
Carel> Try adding non-free to your default deb line in your
Carel> /etc/apt/sources.list:
>> This is strange to me. I've seen the unzip licence, and it
>> looks like one of the most free out there. Could someone
>> explain why it's in non-free?
>>
>> (Actually there's one in non-US, which I can understand because
>> of the encryption, and one in non-free which I can't
>> understand).
kmself> Which specific copyright?
kmself> /usr/doc/unzip-crypt/copyright stipulates several
kmself> restrictions on use in commercial software or software
kmself> sold for a profit. This would tend to run against the
kmself> directives of the DFS guidelines. Ergo: non-free.
I knew I had seen a better copyright somewhere:
--------------
Latest Release
New features in UnZip 5.41, released 16 April 2000:
new BSD-like license
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
new Novell Netware NLM port
support for testing/extraction of archives with more than 65535 files
integrated decryption source code
fix for broken attribute handling in VMS port
--------------
This is from the google cached copy of
http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html
The info-zip.org site seems to be down right now, but the license
should be at
http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/license.html
Cheers,
Chris
--
Every child in America MUST get one of these things for Christmas or
Chanukah or Kwanzaa or Atheist Children Get Presents Day.
-- Dave Barry
Reply to: