Re: Joke non-free clauses?
You mention DUMB v0.9.2, whereas the latest version is 0.9.3. Is this intentional on the part of the 'deadbeef' package?
When DUMB v0.9.2 was the latest version and the problem was first brought to my attention, I put a notice on the website stating that Point 4 of the licence was renounced. For DUMB v0.9.3, I removed the notice, because the new licence had further points in it, one of which was meant to prevent the licence from being non-free. It turns out I didn't do a very good job of being legally clear! There is now a notice on the website about a further clause in DUMB v0.9.3 which I believe is legally clear but still hopefully some fun. I was informed that it was sufficient to make DUMB suitable for inclusion in the free repository.
Could you clarify: is there a problem with DUMB v0.9.3, or is it that DUMB v0.9.2 is non-free and the notice resolving the situation for 0.9.2 no longer remains?
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 23:32:36 +0800
"Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> recently I try to package deadbeef  into Debian and Ubuntu, but it
> includes the libdumb (0.9.2).
> It seems that the libdumb has a license issue which blocked the
> upload. We need to clear the license issue, and make sure that
> everyone agree.
>  http://deadbeef.sourceforge.net/ an audio player ,
> src : git://github.com/dreamerc/deadbeef-debian.git
> Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC) <email@example.com>