Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 03:29:24PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> You may believe it, but your beliefs should not impede others.
> We're not GNU, and this world still has IP laws. Some software has to be
> bought (licensed) in order to be used, and there's significant number of
> users who don't see anything wrong with it.

*sigh* Can we please go back to the original proposal? It was very
explicit about NOT covering commercial software as long as there is a
maintainer to ensure that the software can be bought.

I don't commit a package for my own commercial software, because it
would be useless for anyone except maybe my own customers. I consider
vanishingware with restricted licenses pretty much the same. I gave one
good example outside the scope of this proposal to abs@ already with
Java. I'm perfectly fine with the SAP packages. I am maintainer of the
Python Oracle binding, which is useless without having access to an
Oracle installation. All this cases are fine. I'd call net/skype
border line and lots of other things beyond the border. So far I have
seen no real reason why the rule I gave doesn't cover the relevant
cases.

Joerg