Re: sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> It's a bit more complicated. o-o is upstream maintainer here, too. Usually,
> we *encourage* upstream maintainers to package and maintain their software
> for Debian. Now, with non-free, a paradox situation arises: An author of
> shareware could join Debian and package it for Debian, and Debian would help
> distributing his for-profit ware all over the world.
> The only logical conclusion is to (<agenda>drop non-free or</agenda>)
> disallow shareware in non-free.
Or, as I said, make it against Debian policy for developers to be
in such fragrant conflict of interest.
> IMHO not a too bad idea anyway. A lot of
> people pointed out that there are different license types in non-free, and
> shareware is one of those not too close to free software after all.
But I agree with this too.