Re: intent to package: licq
> On Jul 06, Philip Hands decided to present us with:
> >
> > It will have to be a source only package then. Unless the
> > author fancies actually licensing the distribution of the
> > binaries, under something other than the GPL.
>
> Hmm what's the policy for source-only packages now? Do I clone
> the qmail package? The DFSG mentions code must be distributable
> in binary format; so this would have to go to non-free? And then
> what happens with the kde .deb's?
Well, I don't think we have a licence to distribute KDE binaries at present.
People seem to assume that I say this because I hate KDE, or something, which
is not true. I have no opinion about KDE, having never used it. I do happen
to dislike the way that they are failing to apply the GPL, and then trying to
blame everyone else for the fact that they have not licensed their code for
distribution in binary form.
If KDE were to use an alternative Freeware licence that didn't have the
GPL's ``must be able to modify the source for the program'' clause then
I'm completely happy for it to go in contrib, but at present the binary
packages have no valid license, and so cannot even go in non-free :-(
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: