Re: Question about packaging a nonfree package ( no ITP yet )
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:36:44PM +0100, Jorge Sebastião Soares wrote:
> Good hearing from you.
:-) ditto
> > As far as I know a package with no license at all is simply not
> > redistributable ... since it is lacking the permission to be distributed
> > (even in non-free).
>
>
> I now see how much it sucks...
>
>
> > May be there are alternatives with the same
> > functionality or we try to convince the author to pick at least any
> > license (also for his own safety!) - preferably a free one.
>
> I had a chat with gubbins upstream and I was told not to contact the Fastml
> author. :(
I admit I'm not a fan of "I was told" statements. Nobody should tell a
grown up what he should do in free software aspects.
> Nonetheless I managed to convince gubbins upstream to ask the Fastml author
> about a license.
>
> Reply: He doesn't care about licenses at all.
>
> Let me have a chat around the office again tomorrow. See if we can get the
> guy to pick something.
> It could even be Expat. If he is afraid that big evil corporations will
> make money from his code releasing it as GPL#. (this was hinted in the
> conversation I had with gubbins upstream, but not sure this was what the
> Fastml author had in mind)
You might like to see for "Joe Felsenstein phylip" on the Debian Med
mailing list to seek for previous occurances of this argument. BTW, no
license at all makes you even less safe against "big evil corporation".
> > Just for
> > the name similarity (*ML): We just managed to convince an author of
> > some frequently used, long standing non-free license to pick a free
> > one[1].
>
> Well done on the Phylip petition. I did sign it... I'm happy I did.
Finally it would have worked even without the petition as far as I can
say when the copyright owners realised that they made less not even
a three digit number of $ income per year ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: