Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
> upstream and the work i did on the package led to them considering my
> opinions more favourably or something such.
In the context of this discussion, do you think that the fact that Ocaml
was in non-free was of any significance, or was it rather your
personal contact/persuasion that made the license change possible? Or
did you only initiate the discussion because you were maintaing Ocaml in
non-free?
FWIW, I've convinced a couple of authors to license their semi-free
(which in my context usually means: only free for academic use) under a
true Free Software license, without having the package in non-free. One
could even argue that once a package is in non-free that might be good
enough for some upstreams, so they don't feel the urge to relicense in
order to get their stuff into main. Every case is different.
Michael
Reply to: