One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine, but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be *distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example here, it's the license which is the potential problem, not the software. The phrase "until it will be distributed" makes that very obvious.
I will try to separate things. There can be two cases:
1. 'A' produces software and distributes with non-free license. Debian does not produce software with non-free licenses. It is not interesting case for us now.
2. Debian gets program from 'A' with non-free license and distributes it. In this case all that situations which will happen around programs distributed by Debian are consequences of such a chain:
'A' produces and _distributes_ _under_ _non-free_ _license_ to Debian - Debian _distributes_ _under_ _non-free_ _license_ to user.
It is not correct to say that the problem is in license, or the problem is in distribution.
The problem is in *distribution* *with* *non-free* *license*. License have no meaning without distribution.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
