sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free
I was looking at the sharefont package license because the gimp
package suggests it. It starts off with:
: THIS SOFTWARE IS SHAREWARE AND REQUIRES A PAYMENT FOR USE!!!
Ok, fair enough. It's on non-free.
But then the Debian maintainer wants a cut too!
: If you actually pay money for one or more of the fonts in this
: package then I expect to be cut in. For the work of putting
: together this package I expect $10 or 10% of the fee paid to the
: authors of the fonts whichever is higher.
: Send check to:
: Christoph Lameter, FTS Box 466
: Pasadena, CA 91182
: Christoph Lameter <firstname.lastname@example.org>, October 6, 1996
Perhaps it's a clever idea to discourage the use of non-free,
but I think it looks very bad to have a package on Debian servers
that could profit its maintainer simply for packaging it. It's a
contradiction in philosophy, especially coming from someone with
a high profile like Christoph Lameter.
Should Debian resources be used to make a buck for maintainers?
Do we need policy against this sort of thing?
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/