[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sharefont package license sucks, even for non-free

> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:51:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > Should Debian resources be used to make a buck for maintainers?
> > > No.
> > > > Do we need policy against this sort of thing?
> > > Yes.

On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:01:37AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

(It's customary to put your own comments after what you're replying to)

> Thanks for the laugh.  Ha ha ha.
> If you don't see the difference between:
>  - Getting paid by a compagny to work on Debian to the benifit or
>    our users
> and
>  - Packaging software for non-free as a Debian developers and
>    demanding that users pay you.
> Then there's _no_ point arguing with you.  So I won't.

Well, if you want to go on a moral crusade for no good reason, then I
do see a point arguing with you, so I will.

Note that it was just the text quoted above I was arguing against. If
someone were to package their own shareware, I wouldn't have a problem
with it, eg. I don't have a problem with people making money from what
they do for Debian, at all.

However, this is apparently more of a case of someone distributing
their packaging with a non-free license. That's certainly surprising
and unexpected and unusual. Is it the only such case?

This seems to go against the social contract ("When we write new
components of the Debian system we will license them as free software"
seems like it should apply to packaging stuff), but not for the
reason above ("Should Debian resources be used to make a buck for the

Also, this only says that Christoph "expects" you to pay $10. Not that
you're legally required to if you want to use/distribute/whatever
the .deb. So I'm not sure if this actually even matters.

Example policy forbidding this would be to require all .diff.gz and
.tar.gz stuff to be distributable under the terms of the GPL (as well
as any other terms that might be necessary, eg BSD or Artistic).


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpF90DMsEk9l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: