On Wed, 07 Feb 2001, David Starner wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 03:01:32PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > > http://www.research.att.com/sw/license/ast-open.html > > > > is the license that ksh93 appears to be covered by. I can't tell > > whether it repeats the DFSG at a cursory glance. It doesn't look like > > a nice license. Does anyone see anything non-free about it? > > I think last time this came up, that 1e (You must monitor the website) was > considered non-DFSG free. I think the argument was that that violates #1, > by requiring a "fee". Hmm... I sort of consider monitoring the website for new releases an obligation on the part of the maintainer anyway. I even know why they did that, it's in their FAQ. They need it because of that patent crap (it always boils down to the USA allowing such a ridiculous thing as software patents IMHO -- but let's not digress). I really don't know what to do with this one. If ksh is not going into main, it is not worth packaging IMHO (in other words, I certainly won't do it if it can't go in main, we have pdksh already... so what if it isn't as good as ksh93 YET?). On one side, I don't mind 1e one bit, as I'd be doing it anyway (AND I consider it an obligation of a good debian maintainer to at least check upstream once every three or four months, which is what AT&T calls a 'reasonable period' in their FAQ). Is the fact that there are no banner adds, and little if any marketing crap at all in the www.research.att.com good enough to disqualify 1e as a "fee"? I mean, we don't block software with timebombs from main AFAIK. And 1e is kind of a weird timebomb that doesn't even go off... -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Attachment:
pgpmhDiVmMjto.pgp
Description: PGP signature