Re: Non-free license in included source
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> > Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
> > Fredericks, then of Cray & now-- who knows?-- is source
> > for compface, by James Ashton, then of Sydney University,
> > to provide for a display of XFaces: in a child window at
> > center top of the main window.
>
> FWIW, James Ashton at least now seems to be at ANU, with a home page
> at: http://www.syseng.anu.edu.au/~jaa/ .
>
> HTH.
^^^
Maybe it's just brain-lock on my part, but I don't recognize
this acronym. (Cocking arm, preparing to slap myself on receipt
of your reply)
ANYWAY, as I've prepared to email a plea to James A. -and thank
you very much for his eaddr: you've saved me time, and accelerated
my effort, since now I can't procrastinate this-, I've looked
at the matter more closely, and feel a need to discuss this
here first.
The binary package of xmailtool depends on libcompfaceg, which
is built on a source package _nearly_ identical to the compface
source that is bundled with the xmailtool source package.
The only difference is that the stand-alone compface package
has a README that freely licenses without restriction, while
the set in xmailtool doesn't. Also the cmain.c in both restricts
against distribution with exchange of monies.
Does the README supercede the license restriction in the
comments? (But this is an issue for Hakan Ardo...)
If not, then not only has Debian been in violation of
the copyright -well, actually only abetting violation of
copyright by vendors of Debian CDs-, but ... (aaah! I
hate it when I get interrupted, and lose my train of
thought.)
As new upstream maintainer of xmailtool, and erstwhile maintainer
of the Debian package, I'll unbundle the compface code. It
doesn't really need it, and I can distribute compface code
for unenlightened souls (those that don't use Debian) and
for those who want to "roll their own". That way, xmailtool
won't be encumbered at all.
Previous versions of the source package may have to go into non-free,
jerked from slink, and bo (?)
Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> Scripsit Bolan Meek <Bolan.Meek@wcom.com>
^^^^^^^^
Is this Latin?
>
> > * Written 11th November 1889.
>
> This looks like there is a fair chance that the code may have passed
> into the public domain by now.
Maybe this was actually a port from compfaces for X on Babbage's
Analytical Engine...(?)
But, really, o typos allow squatting on copyright?
Naahh... the copyright is 1990, anyway.
>
> > * Permission is given to distribute these sources, as long as the
> > * copyright messages are not removed, and no monies are exchanged.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > It looks like this makes this code non-free, n'est ce pas?
>
> Yes.
Reply to: