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

Re: Mgetty should be in non-free?

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote:

> Ysgrifennodd Jules Bean ar Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:33:08PM +0000:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote:
> > 
> > > goodies on a CD-ROM collection or whatever, but if you sell @code{mgetty}
> > > bundled with a faxmodem as ``unix fax package'' or ``with unix software!'',
> > > or if you start selling @code{mgetty} with only minor enhancements for lots
> > > of money, I want a share. If in doubt, just ask me.
> > 
> > There is no problem with the payment details.  Indeed the artistic and GPL
> > make the same restriction.  However, this doesn't give permission to
> > modify.  Does some other file give this permission?
> As has been pointed out, this means that you cannot sell a computer that
> included a fax modem, and have Debian (with mgetty) preinstalled on it (or
> supply a Debian CD with it), because the author 'wants a share'. I think
> that's pretty must required - it doesn't look very optional.
> I'd say that's pretty non-free.
> As the license says, perhaps someone should contact the author, and ask for
> this to be changed to a request?

I think that it can be argued that selling a computer with a faxmodem and
also Debian does not amount to bundling mgetty with a modem.

However, I do agree (duh - why didn't I see this before?) that the fact
you can't bundle it with a modem *does* make it unfree.

I also suspect that it's not really the author's intention that it be
non-free.  So we should contact him and explain.  Or, in fact, the
maintainer, Phil Hands should probably do the contacting.

I've taken the liberty of Cc:ing Phil on this message.


|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |

Reply to: