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

bugsx is non-free?


When preparing my next upload of bugsx to fix an unrelated RC bug, I
decided to check whether the current debian/copyright file correctly
reflects the license of the software.

There's a COPYING file in the main directory with GPLv1 text in it, so
at first glance it does. However after closer investigation (since the
sheer existence of such file does not count as a license statement) it
turns out it does not.  Here's a snippet from README:

| 2) Distribution Policy
|         Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software for
|         any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that this
|         copyright notice appear in all copies as well as supporting
|         documentation. All work developed as a consequence of the use of
|         this program should duly acknowledge such use.
|         See the GNU General Public Licence for more information.
|         What does this mean?
|         This means that you can pretty much do with it what you want as
|         long as you don't charge substantially more than the distribution
|         costs for it (of course you have to make the source available).
|         This makes software distributions like Walnut Creek or Infomagic
|         perfectly acceptable.
|         It does NOT matter wether you use it at home or in a comercial
|         environment.
|         If you want to include it in a major commercial distribution you
|         need my permission to do so.

To me, this seems like an attempt to combine GPLv1 with an additional
condition that distribution is allowed only provided distributor does
not charge for the software itself.

So it seems to me it's against DFSG#1, and thus non-free.

Is this correct?

Marcin Owsiany <porridge@debian.org>             http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216  FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75  D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216

Reply to: