Re: apache non-free?
> I would like to ask you to come up with some sounder argument than
> opinion and analogy to house building. Something that actually
> establishes a connection to copyright law. Neither you or me are lawyers,
> and I don't expect a full analysis of modification and derivation. But
> surely something, like a quote from a law, law analysis or lecture about law
> you must surely have in mind, and can provide it to us so we all can
> understand what grounds you are standing on.
As I said before, I am arguing my opinion, not the law. If Apache truly
enforces the definition (and it is up to their definition, not the law)
of "derivative" as any modification, no matter how slight, then surely
Apache is non-free, as far as the DFSG is concerned.
That is my opinion, and nothing more. I would get Apache's written
definition of what they consider a derivative, as a blanket statement
(not as it pertains to Linux, or RedHat or even Debian) before trying to
guess what they meant. I am merely stating what my (optimistic)
understanding of this is. If I were to create a similar license, I would
surely define derivative much more concisely.
Ben
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: