So I agree that the language, as worded, seems like it might not be binding... But it at least reflects a contradictory intent, if not a hard contradiction. The licensors are certainly confused. Has somebody tried contacting them to clarify their intent?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 06:44 Roberto <[email protected]> wrote: > There was a similar case with LinuxSampler a few years ago, restricting > *use* of the program in commercial applications. It was removed from > Debian and it was concluded that its license is inconsistent, nobody can > actually comply with it, because the GPL and the added restriction > contradict each other. It was also rejected from non-free > (undistributable software). > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00271.html > >
