Github ToS and Open Source

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 10:42:14 +0100, Xen wrote:
>I really meant that if the only issue is a GPL violation because an 
>author forbids commercial use, it would seem that the package would 
>simply become "non-free" and can still be available.

But seemingly a GPL exception forbidding to sell the software is a
violation of the GPL, maybe it makes the license null and void and
perhaps the Debian/Ubuntu policies don't allow to provide software
without a license or a "broken" license.

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/linuxsampler

"Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
(#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney )

    Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies
    is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special
    situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one
    exception is the required written offer to provide source code that
    must accompany binary-only release.)"

IIRC when I made an icon for Ubuntustudio some license was required.
I allowed the packager to use what ever license is required ;). I
suspect that Linuxsampler has got no valid license, hence in theory it
could cause legal issues.

See also

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatIsCompatible
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

"Still other projects offered terms that were inconsistent; for
example, a program that claimed to be licensed under the GPL but "for
non-commercial use only," which contradicts the GPL's terms." -
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/18/github_licensing_study/

However, seemingly github endeavours that all software hosted becomes
GPL compatible.