"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amaca...@einval.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 11:58:00PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> All, >> >> Is the license below acceptable for inclusion into 'non-free'? It is >> claimed to cover the tarsnap software, see >> https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap and https://www.tarsnap.com/ for >> background. >> >> Regarding RFP/ITP status, there is now a Salsa pipeline building the >> Debian package: >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/jas/tarsnap/ >> >> It seems to build. If the license is deemed acceptable for inclusion >> into Debian 'non-free' I plan to upload it, closing this old RFP bug. I >> am guessing that the unusual license may have been regarded as a >> blocker. >> > > I'm going to be *very* picky here: a restrictive reading of this might > suggest that only the *exact* software without any modificatin can > be distributed at all. > > Packaging the software for Debian amounts to modification: minimal > modification but modification anyway. That presumably means we > can't distribute it at all, even in non-free.
Thanks for your thoughts. Why would packaging software in Debian necessarily amount to modification of it? Aren't there several packages in 'non-free' (or 'non-free-firmware' for that matter) that only permits verbatim distribution without modification? I thought that was acceptable in 'non-free'. Manuals licensed under GFDL with Invariant Sections comes to mind here. We can't modify those parts but they are in 'non-free'. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
