Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> writes: > Hello Göran, > > On 6/2/18 10:54 PM, Göran Weinholt wrote: >> Steffen Moeller <moeller@debian.org> writes: >> >>> Package: wnpp >>> Severity: wishlist >>> Owner: Steffen Moeller <moeller@debian.org> >>> >>> * Package name : estscan >>> Version : 3.0.3 >>> * URL : http://estscan.sourceforge.net/ >>> * License : non-free custom >>> Programming Lang: C, Fortran >>> Description : ORF-independent detector of coding DNA sequences >>> >>> Continues packaging seeded by Bio-Linux, package is team maintained at >>> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/estscan >> Hello Steffen, >> >> I saw "non-free", got curious, and had a look at the license. To me it >> looks fine for main. >> >> I think the reason it might initially look non-free is § 1 (a), but >> before that it says "under one of the following terms", and § 1 (b) is >> no more than what's in the GPL and so clearly should be fine for main. >> Did I perhaps miss something troublesome in the license? >> > They don't allow charging for its redistribution with a fee that exceeds > material/handling/shipping costs. That's what I thought the confusion was about. But we can ignore § 1 (a) in the license and choose to redistribute under § 1 (b) instead. Under § 1 (b) it doesn't say that we aren't allowed to charge a fee for the initial distribution; the limitation on the fee in that case is for when someone later comes and asks us for a copy of the source code. So one could redistribute the binaries for €100 per CD if one only charges, let's say, €1-3 per source code CD. Alternatively § 1 (b) allows us to distribute the binaries accompanied by the source. This is the same as the GPL and should be fine for main. Now I'm curious why you closed the bug... I could formulate an email to debian-legal and ask about the license, if you're still unsure (and if it's still relevant)? -- Göran Weinholt Debian developer 73 de SA6CJK
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature