Hi,
some times, we (the AlekSIS team) stumble upon upstream maintainers
who consider it funny to add amendments to licenses, or make up fun
licenses on their own. Here are two examples:
https://github.com/codeedu/select2-materialize
This project is MIT-licensed, but has a note saying:
"BUT if you become a millionaire using this code, please bought
me a new brand luxury sailboat."
Probably meant as a joke, a lawyer might see that
differently. Actually, I am somewhat curious if by adding this package
to Debian, and with that forcing it into Ubuntu, we could see Mark
Shuttleworth buy a luxury sailboat for that guy i nexchange for their
30 lines of CSS ;).
https://github.com/iconify/collections-json/issues/12
Not pointing directly to the project in question, but to this
elaborate thread on the issue.
License here:
https://icons8.com/good-boy-license
"Please do whatever your mom would approve of. No tattoos,
No touching food with unwashed hands, No exchanging for drugs"
Taken literally, that is a restriction on use, and as such non-free.
Now, it seems that the intention of these upstreams is not to really
prohibit use. In fact, for the second example, upstream provided a
nexpress statement that they dual-license under MIT license as
well. In the first case, I could not successfully contact the authors
yet.
What does debian-legal say? Could I package the first example for
Debian, and trust that the amendment is a joke?
Thanks,
Nik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iKcEABYKAE8WIQSk6zxRYJYchegBkTEK5VTlRg4b3QUCYV9tJzEaaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cuZG9taW5pay1nZW9yZ2UuZGUvZ3BnLXBvbGljeS50eHQuYXNjAAoJEArlVOVG DhvdfbgBAIdJ8P5SkQFHQMR//tjQgmjkbsGDg+29QbxutPAhf9DUAQCrDx2lFP1T 8KfiX+MzAqsKFV3G38FsgPJcNqfuDwuqBQ==
=toiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)