(please CC me on responses, as I'm not subscribed to this list)
I've ITA'd the package `astrolog', which is an old UNIX astrology
utility (called a `game' in Debian). The package is currently under
This package contains files under two different distribution
The first refers to code that upstream took from another source and we
don't appear to have the right to redistribute that, whether under
non-free or otherwise; I've filed a bug on that (#444061) and removed
the offending files from the .orig. tarball.
The second refers to upstream's work. It reads:
# Permission is granted to freely use and distribute these routines
# provided one doesn't sell, restrict, or profit from them in any way.
# Modification is allowed provided these notices remain with any altered
# or edited versions of the program.
I've been in communication with upstream, and he says that the only
thing he intends to prohibit is someone charging money for his free
program (or charging money for a simple dump of the output of his free
program; he specifically says he has no objection otherwise to its use
in the course of commercial or any other activity.
I _think_ that is good enough to move the program out of non-free, as I
can't see what part of DFSG is being violated. The only question I
had was about `No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor', but
upstream assures he that is not the intent.
Upstream can't relicense under GPL, for example, because he has accepted
code from other contributors under the existing terms.
What is the opinion of our -legal folks?
Doctoral Candidate, Department of History, and
Instructor, Professional Enhancement Programs
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Je ne viens d'aucun pays, d'aucune cité, d'aucune tribu. Je suis fils de la
route, ma patrie est caravane, et ma vie la plus inattendue des traversées.
-- Amin Maalouf, _Léon l'Africain_