Re: FWD: C-Kermit & potato

[Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>]

Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Previously Paul Kimoto wrote:
> > [Excerpt]
> > : The C-Kermit software, in source and/or binary form, may be
> > : included WITHOUT EXPLICIT LICENSE in distributions of OPERATING
> > : SYSTEMS that have OSI (Open Source Initiative, www.opensource.org)
> > : approved licenses
> 
> Still doesn't sound DFSG-free though.

Right.  It would have to be non-free if _anything_.
But what does that sentence mean anyway?  

 `distributions of OSes that have OSI approved licenses'

That have software under these licenses?
That have only software under these licenses?
That have at least one program under one of these licenses?
That have the text of these licenses included in the distribution?

If it's `That have only software under these licenses' then it's
not fit for non-free either, since non-free is only non-DFSG
software.

It's ironic to have have software that isn't DFSG-compliant with
a license to ditribute with only DFSG-compliant software.  Don't
they get it?

(We'll need to see the finl text anyway)

Peter