Re: Why non-free (was Re: unzip - again)
>>>>> "kmself" == kmself <email@example.com> writes:
kmself> on Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 04:52:51PM -0500, Chris Gray
kmself> (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> >>>>> "Carel" == Carel Fellinger <email@example.com> 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
>> 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
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:
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
The info-zip.org site seems to be down right now, but the license
should be at
Every child in America MUST get one of these things for Christmas or
Chanukah or Kwanzaa or Atheist Children Get Presents Day.
-- Dave Barry