Re: Mgetty should be in non-free?
Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> > I believe this does not meet the DSFG.
> There is no problem with the payment details. Indeed the artistic and GPL
> make the same restriction.
I think the parts that make it non DFSG-free are
| if you sell @code{mgetty} bundled with a faxmodem as ``unix fax
| package'' or ``with unix software!'', or if you start selling
| @code{mgetty} with only minor enhancements for lots of money, I want a
| share.
The last part about "selling mgetty with only minor enhancements"
*could* be interpreted simply as prohibiting the distribution of
derived works under proprietary licences. Which would be OK if that
interpretation was unabiguous.
The prohibition against bundling the program with faxmodems is
apparently not against the letter of the current DFSG, but it
is clearly not intended that such things should be considered
'free'. The license must not restrict bundling with other software,
why then should it be allowed to restrict bundling with hardware?
The ultimate consequence of having such licenses in main seems to
be that it is currently illegal to sell a computer with a faxmodem
in it and Debian preinstalled, if the preinstallation includes mgetty.
--
Henning Makholm
http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm
Reply to: