brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
>> different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
>> supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and
>> anybody not contributing back or taking commercial advantage in a closed
>> source solution is in its total rights under the GPL3 license.
Also, now that I read it again, the following in the page
"If you wish to use the open source license of an Ext product, you must
contribute all your source code to the open source community and you
must give them the right to share it with everyone too."
may be a fail of the dissident test, as there is the word "must".
But this is a "Quick Overview", and could be considered a bad
interpretation or misunderstanding.
Anyway, I got in touch with the author, I hope they will reply. If not,
I will call them and try to clarify what is the author's intention and
explain the Debian view on freeness, plus the fact that their license is
raising some controversial opinions that should be avoided if possible.
If I get no reply from them, or anything positive, then why should I
care doing the packaging in main? Either send it in non-free or just
forget about it...
Please do not start a 100 post thread in this ITP if this has been
discussed in the past (let's not loose time twice on a bad license). I
just would like to have a link here to the archive of the old discussion
about if one of you can find it.