Re: sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free
I understand a bit better...
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > - You `may naturally want to be cut in', but you are using
> > Debian resources to do it. I think the Debian part of
> > distributing shareware should be free, including the packaging
> > of it by the Debian maintainer.
> We all shoot for free software but at that time (1996!!!) there were
> barely any fonts available under Linux.
Yes, I understand this. But I still ask you to reconsider at
this time, 4 years later.
> The license is an upstream license
> since I am the creator of the sharefont package which is widely
> distributed apart from Debian. The license is not only for Debian. I made
> the package before I joined the Debian project.
Okay, so reconsider it in these terms...
It's a conflict of interest. A Debian maintainer should not
profit directly from the distribution of a package using Debian
> > - If you don't like to package shareware, you don't have to.
> > I'd even be happier you you hadn't encouraged the use of
> > shareware in the first place by packaging it.
> The difference between no scalable fonts and some fonts was really
> motivating back then. In 2000 I would not do it. The individual font
> licenses are all screwed up too.
So ask that the package be removed then.
> > Some developers may find it funny. I simply don't like the image
> > it gives Debian if new users read that copyright file.
> You are talking about non-free..... And some teasers to activate brain
> activity are very useful.
But it's not very clear what part you played as a Debian
maintainer and as an independent packager separate from Debian.
You are using both identify confusingly in the copyright file.
> > Please consider removing your cut, or rephrasing such that your
> > point is made more clearly (if that was your intention), or
> > even removing the package altogether.
> I cannot do that.
Why can't you? You _are_ upstream. You can do whatever you want.
> The package was licensed under those terms and it is
> circulating that way widely among the users of Linux. I do not intend to
> make any changes to the sharefont package. I might update the Debian
> packaging which is something entirely different.
I think there's a conflict of interest, and that you should not
distribute the package as a Debian maintainer if you intend to
make money from it. If would be different considerations if
someone else uploaded it to Debian because they thought it was
useful to the community.
> There is no special
> licensing for Debian nor did I add a special licensing as a Debian
It's still a conflict of interest.
> > (As a side note, I'm not for the removal of the non-free section,
> > but I would be for the removal of all shareware packages from
> > non-free. I don't see why Debian should be working for these
> > people, doing their distribution work for them.)
> Its not entirely a Debian issue. You are talking with the upstream author
Which makes it a conflict of interest.
> I really do not care about sharefont these days. It probably belongs into
> a museum of artifacts of the early open source movement.
Another reason to remove it from the Debian archives.
I hope you reconsider.