Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Probably OK in non-free given that Debian is a non-profit
>> organisation.
>
> Wait, wait: IIUC, we are talking about a work which is licensed
> under the terms of the GNU LGPL v2 or later as a whole, but includes
> code licensed under a non-profit-only license.
>
> The two licenses are incompatible, as you noticed, hence the Debian
> Project has no valid permission to redistribute the work, even in
> non-free. More precisely, in order to comply with Section 4 of LGPLv2,
> the Debian Project should distribute the whole work under the terms of
> the LGPL, but this is impossible without violating the UNC Chapel Hill
> license.
>
> Consequently, I would say that the work is legally undistributable
> (regardless of the archive section Debian chooses to distribute from).
That is what I was afraid of. We'll have to play with the upstream of
the package so that this code is not used anymore (there seem to be a
replacement around). Many thanks,
Vincent
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
-- pretty boring signature, isn't it ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
