License situation of this package is a mess. Most source files don't have any copyright notice. The README file says: ╓──── ║ In these programs all algorithms are implemented based on publicly available ║ software to prevent any claim that would prevent redistribution due to ║ Copyright. Although parts of the code would indeed fall under the Copyright ║ by the original author, use and redistribution of all such code is explicitly ║ allowed. For some parts of it the GNU software license does apply. ╙──── Debian includes this package in main (under the name "macutils"), and <http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/m/macutils/macutils_2.0b3-16/macutils.copyright> says in addition: ╓──── ║ Clarified Copyright Notice: ║ -- ║ Almost all of the code is either created by me from scratch or loosely ║ based on *algorithms* that are publicly available. Most of the algorithms ║ are actually found by reverse engineering and interpretation of the results. ║ In some cases the algorithms came from the acknowledged sources, but the ║ implementation is my own. ║ ║ As far as sources are concerned, the only execptions are ║ macutil/de_compress.c and macutil/de_lzah.c They have a clear relation ║ with the original source. de_lzah.c is loosely based on LZSS.C in ║ LHarc. As the file says: ║ 4/6/1989 Haruhiko Okumura ║ Use, distribute, and modify this program freely. ║ ║ [..] ║ ║ The point where GPL might come in is in the Zoom part (macutil/zma.c), ║ but I do not think this is so; the algorithm is found from a file ║ mailed to me by the author, which would fall under the GPL, but the ║ implementation is completely different. ║ ║ - Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:30:58 +0100 ║ -- ║ ║ Clarified Licensing Terms: ║ -- ║ According to Dutch law it is *not* possible to release something in the ║ public domain. So I might state that but I would not be bound by it... ║ Yup, copyright is a mess. But I indeed do have the copyright, but it may ║ be distributed and used for any purpose. ║ ║ - Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:38:37 +0100 ╙──── However, I don't see how the "Clarified Licensing Terms" would grant the right to do modifications. Even worse, doc/README.{hexbin,macget} seems to imply that at least parts are derived from code that is: ╓──── ║ (c) 1984 Brown University ║ may be used but not sold without permission ╙──── Fedora has removed the package for that reason: <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=202518> Not sure what to do here: - If we go with Dik Winter's licensing terms, then this is "freedist" (no modifications allowed) - If we take the Brown University copyright serious, then we're not even allowed to redistribute this package.
Do you mean app-arch? If so, the package is currently masked for treecleaning and is due to be removed.
(In reply to comment #1) > Do you mean app-arch? I do. Sorry. > If so, the package is currently masked for treecleaning and is due to be > removed.
dropped
