Re: Ghostscript Licence
> > > If 3.53 should go into non-free, I guess I should release
> > > 2.62 too (for the base system), and make the 3.53 package
> > > replace 2.62.
> >
> > I think we must do it that way, unfortunately. From the license, it seems
> > when you include even one non-free program on the CD, you have to
> > negotiate separately for the rights to include gs; that would be a
> > particular dangerous legal bomb anywhere except in non-free.
>
> That's right -- but how big is the bomb? Clearly the INTEND
> of Debian is to make everything on the CD freely copyable, so
> I think Peter Deutsch will have a hard time if he finds somewhere
> some not-completly-free programme .Also, he isn't very specific
> about how free something should be, so I don't think he intends the
> licence to read "if I find *somewhere* some non-free programme on the
> CD, then your're gonna hang". I'll mail him to ask what about such
> cases.
Keep in mind, also, that "free" is a poor word. Technically, something
can't be simply "free". It must be "free of something". Most people
think of "free" as "free of cost", though the FSF defines it as "free of
restrictions on distribution".
The statement about any "non-free" programs probably wouldn't stand
up in court unless this term is explicitly defined somewhere.
It sounds to me like the intent of ghostscript is that it can't be
distributed with any "non-free-of-cost" programs. It shouldn't be too
hard to clear this up with the author.
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
Reply to: