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

Re: Providing a non-free alternative to a free package

On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:32:16AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012, Olе Streicher wrote:
> > This is something I have to discuss with the upstream author (who
> > also sells the unobfuscated version). He probably would then make a
> > specific license which would allow its distribution, but he is not
> > willing to put the original source code under GPL.
> A license like MIT or Expat or another free non-copyleft license would
> work. However, as it is now, Debian cannot comply with the license
> terms to distribute the work at all, so it cannot go even into
> non-free.

Is slalib the contents of libraries/sla/ in the repository you linked to? 
If so, it appears the current upstream is not the sole copyright holder, and
there are many other contributors dating from 2004 for sla, and 1989 for the
project as a whole (counting only versioned history).  This means, it is
illegal to distribute the obfuscated version for anyone (including current
upstream), and anyone who buys the unobfuscated one can pass it further
under GPL.

(This is only from looking at the version control, it's possible the
proprietary version was correctly unliberated.)

// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: