Re: How free does a non-free package have to be?

[Johannes Rohr <j.rohr@gmx.de>]

Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe@orcus.priv.at> writes:

> Frank Gevaerts <frank@gevaerts.be> writes:
> 
> > AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
> 
> Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
> various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
> non-free (don't remember why).

The installers are of particular interest to me, since I'm also
working on one. However, none of them is listed at
[..]/unable-to-package, possibly because they _had_ been packaged but
were removed only later.

Is there a list of removed packages available anywhere, together with
reasons for the removal?

The current situation with F-Prot is that the license does not contain
any statement on the terms of redistribution. Following the Debian
policy, this means that redistribution is not allowed. At the same
time, F-Prot for GNU/Linux _has_ been distributed by others, e.g. by
the well-known German Computer magazin c't, where it was part of a
GNU/Linux based rescue system they distributed on CD some time last
year. I'm quite sure that their legal experts are quite accurate on
redistribution terms, also.

I've contacted the vendor some days ago to seek clarification but they
did not respond yet. I'm not sure they will, as they haven't been
responsive earlier, when I informed them, that their .deb was (and
continues to be) utterly broken.

But even if redistribution is forbidden, an installer package should
still be O.K., since it does not contain the actual software. Or did I
miss something?

Would it make any difference, whether or not an installer package
downloads the SW for the user of if s/he has to do this manually? In
other words: Would a package that automatically downloads the software
in question count as a means of (illegal) "redistribution"?

Thanks,

Johannes