Re: Non-free mrouted
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <email@example.com> writes:
mrouted> At the time LICENSEE provides a copy of a derivative version of
mrouted> the Program to a third party, LICENSEE shall provide STANFORD
mrouted> with one copy of the source code of the derivative version at
mrouted> no charge to STANFORD.
Richard> This clause has three consequences that kick in as soon as
Richard> people try to use modified versions instead of the original
Richard> version from STANFORD: 1. Distribution of the program requires
Richard> having a net connection, or paying for some kind of mail or
Richard> shipping to STANFORD. 2. Distribution of the program must
Richard> cease if STANFORD no longer exists or is not reachable.
Richard> 3. STANFORD is going to be mailbombed, because it requires a
Richard> copy for every time the program is distributed :-) These
Richard> consequences depend somewhat on the interpretation of
Richard> "provide", but Debian doesn't like to guess about such things.
Richard> STANFORD might not be aware of these consequences of their
Richard> clause. If you care about the package, you might be able to
Richard> get them to change it a bit. Please consult debian-legal if
Richard> you take this course.
I understand the clause as that if I modify the program and distribute it to
somebody else, I have to send it to Standford. If I'm merely redistributing
without changing it, I shouldn't need to do anything. It seems slightly
more strict than GPL, which has similar requirement, but the source code
only has to be sent to the one who get the binary, only at the request of
that user, and you can charge a fee for the service.
But I think a software package can be termed as non-free in Debian only if
it violate some particular clause of DFSG. What I want to know is which
clause of the mrouted license violate DFSG, and which particular clause of