Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages

[Sylvain C. <za...@fr...>]

Le mardi, 10 d=E9c 2002, =E0 16:14 Europe/Paris, David R. Morrison a =
=E9crit :

> One of the main themes of the Fink project is careful respect for the
> licenses which software developers include with their code.  Most Fink
> packages are based on software with one of the "open source" licenses
> which explicitly allow distribution in binary form (sometimes with the
> requirement that the source code must also be distributed).  A few=20
> other
> Fink packages don't have "open source" licenses, but still have=20
> licenses
> which explicitly allow us to distribution pre-compiled binaries.  My
> message was about the remaining packages, in which the license may =
have
> some clause like "educational use only", and which don't explictly=20
> permit
> distribution of binaries (and may in fact forbid it).  Those are=20
> packages
> which we do not distribute in binary form.

	In this regard, mpg123 is tagged as Restrictive (which it is) =
and so=20
doesn't make it to the binary distribution whereas the License says :

The software may not be sold for profit or as "hidden" part of
another software, but it may be included with collections
of other software, such as CD-ROM images of FTP servers and
similar, provided that this software is not a significant part
of that collection.
Precompiled binaries of this software may be distributed in the
same way, provided that this copyright notice and license is
included without modification.


	Wouldn't we need an additional License for packages like this ?


--
zauc