Hi Nik, JSON has a license with similar problems. It has the addendum
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. Debian takes the author at their word, and so it goes into non-free. https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil I think that would have to be the case here as well. Cheers, Walter Landry Dominik George writes: > Hi, > > some times, we (the AlekSIS team) stumble upon upstream maintainers > who consider it funny to add amendments to licenses, or make up fun > licenses on their own. Here are two examples: > > https://github.com/codeedu/select2-materialize > > This project is MIT-licensed, but has a note saying: > > "BUT if you become a millionaire using this code, please bought > me a new brand luxury sailboat." > > Probably meant as a joke, a lawyer might see that > differently. Actually, I am somewhat curious if by adding this package > to Debian, and with that forcing it into Ubuntu, we could see Mark > Shuttleworth buy a luxury sailboat for that guy i nexchange for their > 30 lines of CSS ;). > > https://github.com/iconify/collections-json/issues/12 > > Not pointing directly to the project in question, but to this > elaborate thread on the issue. > > License here: https://icons8.com/good-boy-license > > "Please do whatever your mom would approve of. No tattoos, > No touching food with unwashed hands, No exchanging for drugs" > > Taken literally, that is a restriction on use, and as such non-free. > > > Now, it seems that the intention of these upstreams is not to really > prohibit use. In fact, for the second example, upstream provided a > nexpress statement that they dual-license under MIT license as > well. In the first case, I could not successfully contact the authors > yet. > > What does debian-legal say? Could I package the first example for > Debian, and trust that the amendment is a joke? > > Thanks, > Nik
