"Thijs Kinkhorst" <th...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
>> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
>> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
>
> This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts.
>
> I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software could have a
> legally valid case where a judge would positively decide that a use case
> is objectively "Evil" and in violation of this license. I don't see a
> practical risk to anyones freedom being in jeopardy here.
>
> Surely it's an annoying license, so when removing it is opportune we
> should do it, but in this case the potential gains (if any?) do not seem
> to outweigh the cost.
The problem is not whether Debian can distribute the software. The
problem is that the tarball that Debian distributes to users must not
contain non-free bits. This is hardly the first time that this has
come up [1]. Yes, it is annoying for the packager. But it is useful for
the user to know that, whatever is in the tarball, they will not have
to do any forensic analysis before using the tarball.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
[1] For example,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00083.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00280.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/07/msg00043.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
