Hi, On Friday 27 April 2007 21:08, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Thanks to the heads-up from Holger, I discovered that there are a few > packages from the non-free section of the archive. We need to make > sure the license of these packages do not hinder us in any way. > Anyone know? The binary packages in question are: > > crafty festlex-oald fglrx-driver gcc-4.1-doc gcc-doc-base gnupg-doc > kqemu-source scilab-bin scilab sun-java5-bin sun-java5-jre > sun-java5-plugin ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10 ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10
And I am also so stupid to further follow up on this :-)
Remove these:
sun-java5-bin, sun-java5-jre and sun-java5-plugin: I stopped reading the
licence after reading "2. (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the
Software to run in conjunction with any additional software that implements
the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;" - which prohibits
us from shipping free java implementations.
festlex-oald: "Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute this software and
its documentation for research, educational and individual use only." - I
want to (be able to) use skolelinux commercially.
fglrx-driver: "(c) You may: ii) make one copy of the Software in
machine-readable form for backup purposes only. You must reproduce on such
copy ATI's copyright notice and any other proprietary legends that were on
the original copy of the Software;"
kqemu-source: "Provided the QEMU acceleration module is not sold (for example
on a CD or as a part of a commercial distribution based on Debian) you have
my permission to package it."
ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10 and ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10: part of the licence are
written in japanese and translated to english. the part about the
requierements for commercial use are in japanese and not translated.
Distributing the fonts by non-individuals needs to be told upstream.
Luckily, ttf-kochi-gothic and ttf-kochi-mincho are (the same) packages, which
consists of free japanese fonts (where the one problematic font, naga10, was
removed.)
Unsure:
crafty: "This program may not be used in whole, nor in part, to enter any
computer chess competition without written permission from the author." :) I
think we can live with that. More seriously, the author only gave explicit
permission to Debian to distribute it on CDs and from debian-ftp-server, but
as I see it, we are (a) Debian (subproject). Actually now that I think about
it, maybe we should remove crafty too. School users might want to enter chess
competitions... But legally we can/could keep it.
scilab-bin, scilab: I'm not sure I fully understood the (dfsg-)problem with
the licence, I think it's only because you cannot sell or commercially use
_derived_ software. But as we ship the original, this is no problem for us.
But please somebody else read the licence-text, if this is the only problem.
Keep:
gcc-4.1-doc, gcc-doc-base, gnupg-doc: GFDL. If we want to distribute non-free
material (according to DFSG) like this, we can keep it.
regards,
Holger
pgpvKDAFFzbPi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
