Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements
Dmitrijs Ledkovs <dmitrij.ledkov@ubuntu.com> writes:
> 2. If tarball is not redistributable
> It belongs in non-free, or must be repackaged to become redistributable
I think people are missing the degree of complexity in this. For
instance, files included the source tarball that aren't used by the Debian
build but are under a "no commercial use" license would mean that the
Debian source packages can no longer be distributed by a commercial CD or
DVD retailer. Binaries containing encryption code that can't be rebuilt
from the sources in the source package, even if never used in Debian,
suddenly potentially run afoul of US crypto export requirements. Etc.
I suspect the original motivation is really limited just to files that are
DFSG-compatible except for limitations on specific types of derivative
works that don't involve commercial use, such as GFDL documents with
invariant sections or IETF RFCs. But I think drawing a line around just
that case, even if we all agreed it was desirable to do so, is harder than
it looks.
We did talk about this during http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001, I
believe.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: