On 5/12/05, Larry Doolittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam - > > Thanks for making this list. Debian should have done > something like this a long time ago. I can see this > turning into a long-term project (not necessarily by you), > perhaps adding flags covering restrictions on modification, > and distribution for fee.
Yes, but that would include virtually all of non-free! Virtually all packages I looked at prohibited distribution for profit and most prohibited distribution for any fee. Some prohibited distribution on CD/DVD media, but are ok for network distribution. > I'm only familiar with a few of the packages listed in > bad.txt, and I would have guessed that they would be > categorized as "good", since all the restrictions are > on modification, not redistribution. > > qmail I got confused by the license. First he allows people to distribute unmodified copies. Then "Dan will approve distribution of specific binary packages" and then something about OK to distribute. Then being bamboozled by Microsoft and not to worry *unless* you distribute software. Huh? http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/qmail.txt > ezmlm Dan Bernstein grants any use of ezmlm, including patching and distributing diffs; but he doesn't allow binary distributions without his approval, so ezmlm is non-free. See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ezmlm.txt > figlet Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and * its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided * that, ... * * (ii) any modifications to this source file must be sent, via e-mail * to the copyright owner (currently [EMAIL PROTECTED]) within * 30 days of such modification. http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/figlet.txt So, I really do NOT like this. But I guess AMD64 can distribute it if they want. I wouldn't :) > lmbench My script didn't find debian/copyright. I didn't look closer so I put it in the bad category. You can see the debian/*copyright files I found in, http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ lmbench had nothin... http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/lmbench.txt > ucspi-tcp Dan Bernstein grants any use of ucspi-tcp, including patching and distributing diffs; but he doesn't allow binary distributions without his approval. See http://pobox.com/~djb/softwarelaw.html http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ucspi-tcp.txt > > I'm curious to hear your rationale for putting these in bad.txt. I only looked in debian/*copyright files and searched for "dist" keyword. Then I read the relevent areas around it. I read the entire liceses in some cases. In one case, the license was crap, but then copyright holders explained that it was OK to distribute by Linux distributions (not just Debian). Anyway, what I think ended up in bad.txt were not only packages that cannot be distributed by Amd64, but also packages with no debian/*copyright file(s) as well as packages which had questionable licenses. Some of the packages in the latter category had contradictory and/or confusing licenses. - Adam PS. I think there are some adobe fonts that have a license that allow for free distribution and use. And then there is a notice: "Patents pending."!. Anyway, I put those in good category, but as you can see, these are clearly non-free!