On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 06:41:47PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes: > > Simon> All, Is the license below acceptable for inclusion into > Simon> 'non-free'? It is claimed to cover the tarsnap software, see > Simon> https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap and > Simon> https://www.tarsnap.com/ for background. > > I think Andrew's reading is more picky than I've generally seen us be. > I think that if you do not need to modify any of the files they > distribute in order to package, you can make a sufficiently credible > claim that you have not modified the software. >
I was being picky but it would be quite open to a software author to intend "When I say don't modify, I mean don't modify *at all* Unless you distribute code that is unmodified from the code on my website that is an original tar.xz or git commit, you have no permission to distribute it" == you've taken my code, it's no longer identical and provably mine and I'm not going to allow you to distribute it as mine. Given the clarifications in the thread from Tarsnap, that point is irrelevant. It looks as if they are giving you permission to package it because they'd like it to be more widely available on more architectures from within Debian. That's great and they might be willing to let you help develop. License proliferation: not so great and it might have been better if they'd felt able to use one of the more widely used free software licences. As ever, an author can choose whichever license they choose for their own software, whatever Debian thinks. > I'd go ask them. > Thanks to both at Tarsnap for stepping in and clarifying for us. Debian-legal is often just Debian folk having an opinion on what would be appropriate for Debian. It's not binding legal advice and shouldn't be taken as such - all help and clarification is much appreciated. All the very best, as ever, Andy Cater (amaca...@debian.org)
