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

Re: ftp.debian.org: RM: imapsync -- RoM; author doesn't want us to distribute his program

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for your opinion.

Please consider the fact that the author explicitly asked us to _NOT_
distribute his software.  I do not believe that Debian is (or should be)
an organization that disregards a request like this.

The author explicitly said that he is trying a new business model and it
is clear that our distribution makes that harder.

If you do not agree with this reasoning and you want to go the opposite
way, feel free to buy the source from Gilles (or download an old version
for free if you are really that cheap), relicense it as GPL, find a new
name, find a new maintainer in Debian and upload a new package.

But I do not want to be part of it and I sincerely hope that other
Debian Developers feel the same way and honor Gilles work enough to not
intentionally try to kill his business.

> I do not understand why you wish to remove from the debian archive
> software that debian users may rely on (as far as I can see from the
> original report, not everyone's use of the version Debian ships hits the
> reported problem), just because of a possible license problem in a
> *different version* of the software than debian ships.

So please accept my explanation and please understand, that I do not
abandon the package because of the license problems, but because of the
request of the upstream author.

> As far as I can see, the author of this software has even said in a
> message in this bug report that "You can even make [this software] a GPL
> software"[1], which I understand him to mean that the intent of the new
> license is to be GPL-compatible!

You are reading very selectively.


Please observe, the short "No." it contains everything.

Gilles: if I misunderstood you, please say it, but currently I do not
see any reason why Debian should distribute this software against your

Jeff: the package is already removed, so our argument is quite
hypothetical anyway, a new upload has to be done if you want to see the
package again in unstable.  Happy hacking if you are willing to work on
that, with the current status of the upstream I am not willing.

Thanks for your mail,

Reply to: