IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig at
Tue Sep 29 14:59:53 UTC 2015

On 09/29/2015 04:49 PM, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:29 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)
> <umlaeute at> wrote:
>> it apparently is non-free, but is this the only reason?
>> (i searched the net, but couldn't find anything)
> It's a long standing issue, upstream releases it under a sort GPL with
> a commercial exception [1], that makes
>  1. no sense at all
>  2. the whole software package in conflict with the GPL itself
> I don't think we could even upload it to non-free, though I'm not 100% sure.

i'm aware of the exception, but thought that non-free might be ok.

while i don't care much about your 1st point, the 2nd one is obviously
important (and the FSF seems to agree with you [1]). so:
- has anybody asked for advice on debian-legal?
- has anybody asked upstream to change their license to another free
license that allows a non-commercial clause? (assuming that there is
little point in trying to persuade them into dropping the non-commercial



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list