Miriam Ruiz writes ("Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer"):
> But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most
> likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone
> packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the
> archive.It would probably be possible to make the restriction configurable, so that a user could disable it easily. So it seems like our options (assuming no-one manages to change the author's mind) might be: (a) Distribute the software with the restriction entirely removed, within the legal permission granted by the authors but against their clearly expressed non-binding wishes; (b) Distribute the software with the restriction on by default but made configurable, perhaps with only the grudging acceptance of upstream; (c) Distribute it with the restriction compiled in. (d) Do not distribute the software at all; Both (a) and (b) have their problems but (c) and (d) seem worse to me. While it is very likely that the TC would (in response to a bug report) overrule a maintainer who did (c), I'm doubtful whether the TC would overrule a maintainer who did (b). Personally I don't think (b) is too bad an imposition on users. It's not a DFSG violation. At worst it's annoying. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21786.36139.851558.610...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
