Re: sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 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?
Hehehe. It took such a long time for someone to notice.... I really need
to update the address. No checks yet ;-)
If I have to suffer through packaging shareware and the shareware authors
get $$$ from it then I naturally want to be cut in. If its free then I
know what my work will be used in such a way as to be free too and then
its ok also to be beer-free.