Hi, some times, we (the AlekSIS team) stumble upon upstream maintainers who consider it funny to add amendments to licenses, or make up fun licenses on their own. Here are two examples: https://github.com/codeedu/select2-materialize This project is MIT-licensed, but has a note saying: "BUT if you become a millionaire using this code, please bought me a new brand luxury sailboat." Probably meant as a joke, a lawyer might see that differently. Actually, I am somewhat curious if by adding this package to Debian, and with that forcing it into Ubuntu, we could see Mark Shuttleworth buy a luxury sailboat for that guy i nexchange for their 30 lines of CSS ;). https://github.com/iconify/collections-json/issues/12 Not pointing directly to the project in question, but to this elaborate thread on the issue. License here: https://icons8.com/good-boy-license "Please do whatever your mom would approve of. No tattoos, No touching food with unwashed hands, No exchanging for drugs" Taken literally, that is a restriction on use, and as such non-free. Now, it seems that the intention of these upstreams is not to really prohibit use. In fact, for the second example, upstream provided a nexpress statement that they dual-license under MIT license as well. In the first case, I could not successfully contact the authors yet. What does debian-legal say? Could I package the first example for Debian, and trust that the amendment is a joke? Thanks, Nik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature