Re: MIT/Expat with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" statement

[Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>]

On 26/04/12 11:41, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote:
> I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in
> package will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper"
> around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from
> LICENSE.
> 
> Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper now to do nothing?

The requirement for main is that you don't cause any non-free code to
be present in the archive: either in the orig.tar.*, the Debian
diff/tarball, or the binary packages. (That's why patching out
non-free code is not OK, because that still results in Debian
distributing one copy of it in the orig.tar.*, and a second copy in
the "-" lines of the Debian diff.)

This situation is a bit confusing because it sounds as though there
are two files involved, both called "jsmin": "the library" is a
translation of the original jsmin non-Python library into Python
("Good, not Evil" license inherited from the original jsmin non-Python
library), and "the wrapper" wraps it in a common API (Expat license).
Is this the case? If so, you must not distribute "the library" but I
think it's OK to distribute "the wrapper".

If that's the case, and the orig tarball doesn't contain an embedded
code copy of "the library", then yes I think you can just patch "the
wrapper".

If your orig tarball does contain an embedded code copy of "the
library", you must still repack the tarball to remove it.

    S