Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > molphy very simple license says it is "free software". fails to have
> > an explicit clause allowing modification. clarification
> > would be good, but IMO there is no compelling reason why
> > this can't go in main.
>
> Lack of permission to modify is itself a compelling reason. In the
> absence of an explicit grant of permission, all rights are reserved (as
> the copyright file for this package says). The use of the phrase "free
> software" in the copyright statement provides no protection to any of
> our users who, seeing that this package is in main, assume that they can
> safely modify it and redistribute the result.
Maybe contacting the author and asking him to choose a clearer licence
would be a good solution here.
> > mwavem says license is GPL. why is this in non-free? does it contain
> > binary-only driver or something??
>
> Relevant bug from the changelog is 192270. The copyright file says GPL,
> but it contains DSP binaries that don't come with source (certainly a
> disputed topic). AFAICT, the conclusion in that bug report was "hmm, we
> don't seem to have an explicit license for these binaries at all" --
> which would make this package non-distributable, not non-free.
>
> > sgb modified files must be renamed and clearly identified. why is this in
> > non-free?
>
> ISTR this license element came up for discussion in the context of the
> LaTeX license; I /thought/ the conclusion was that requiring changes to
> filenames in the source was ok, but that requiring changes to filenames
> in the binary package was not. Debian-legal, please correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
> > sl-modem-daemon looks like BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause.
> > why is this in non-free?
> > sl-modem-source looks like BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause.
> > why is this in non-free?
>
> Hmm, I can't find anything in the list archives or in the package
> history to explain why this is in non-free. I agree that this appears
> to belong in main.
Maybe they contain or need binary firmware or something such ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: