On Mon, May 13, 2013 15:31, Walter Landry wrote: > "Thijs Kinkhorst" <th...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote: >>> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated >>> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply. >> >> This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts. >> >> I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software could have a >> legally valid case where a judge would positively decide that a use case >> is objectively "Evil" and in violation of this license. I don't see a >> practical risk to anyones freedom being in jeopardy here. >> >> Surely it's an annoying license, so when removing it is opportune we >> should do it, but in this case the potential gains (if any?) do not seem >> to outweigh the cost. > > The problem is not whether Debian can distribute the software. The > problem is that the tarball that Debian distributes to users must not > contain non-free bits. This is hardly the first time that this has > come up [1]. Yes, it is annoying for the packager. But it is useful for > the user to know that, whatever is in the tarball, they will not have > to do any forensic analysis before using the tarball.
My argument is not about this general idea but against this specific case for this license. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
