Re: non-free package archive

[Adam M <gnuman1@gmail.com>]

On 5/12/05, Larry Doolittle <ldoolitt@recycle.lbl.gov> wrote:
> Adam -
> 
> Thanks for making this list.  Debian should have done
> something like this a long time ago.  I can see this
> turning into a long-term project (not necessarily by you),
> perhaps adding flags covering restrictions on modification,
> and distribution for fee.

Yes, but that would include virtually all of non-free! Virtually all
packages I looked at prohibited distribution for profit and most
prohibited distribution for any fee. Some prohibited distribution on
CD/DVD media, but are ok for network distribution.

> I'm only familiar with a few of the packages listed in
> bad.txt, and I would have guessed that they would be
> categorized as "good", since all the restrictions are
> on modification, not redistribution.
> 
>   qmail

I got confused by the license. First he allows people to distribute
unmodified copies. Then "Dan will approve distribution of specific
binary packages" and then something about OK to distribute. Then being
bamboozled by Microsoft and not to worry *unless* you distribute
software. Huh?

http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/qmail.txt

>   ezmlm

Dan Bernstein grants any use of ezmlm, including patching and distributing
diffs; but he doesn't allow binary distributions without his approval, so
ezmlm is non-free.  See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ezmlm.txt

>   figlet

Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and
 * its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided
 * that,
...
*
 * (ii) any modifications to this source file must be sent, via e-mail
 *      to the copyright owner (currently hamrick@primenet.com) within
 *      30 days of such modification.

http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/figlet.txt

So, I really do NOT like this. But I guess AMD64 can distribute it if
they want. I wouldn't :)

>   lmbench

My script didn't find debian/copyright. I didn't look closer so I put
it in the bad category. You can see the debian/*copyright files I
found in,

http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/

lmbench had nothin...
http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/lmbench.txt

>   ucspi-tcp

Dan Bernstein grants any use of ucspi-tcp, including patching and
distributing diffs; but he doesn't allow binary distributions
without his approval.  See http://pobox.com/~djb/softwarelaw.html

http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ucspi-tcp.txt

> 
> I'm curious to hear your rationale for putting these in bad.txt.

I only looked in debian/*copyright files and searched for "dist"
keyword. Then I read the relevent areas around it. I read the entire
liceses in some cases. In one case, the license was crap, but then
copyright holders explained that it was OK to distribute by Linux
distributions (not just Debian).

Anyway, what I think ended up in bad.txt were not only packages that
cannot be distributed by Amd64, but also packages with no
debian/*copyright file(s) as well as packages which had questionable
licenses. Some of the packages in the latter category had
contradictory and/or confusing licenses.

- Adam

PS. I think there are some adobe fonts that have a license that allow
for free distribution and use. And then there is a notice: "Patents
pending."!. Anyway, I put those in good category, but as you can see,
these are clearly non-free!