On 09-Feb-99 Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > Umm, wait a moment. When I read the draft once again, I got the > impression that it will make non-us, but currently DFSG-free software > non-free. Certainly not the intent. > The problem is that the draft doesn't talk about the license of the > software, but about the software itself. It's partially wording. It sounds more like lawyer-speak and not common-man-speak to say, "The license must allow anyone..." as opposed to "Anyone must..." > Maybe a solution is to add to the list of accepted restrictions (3), > restrictions that are put up on the software by local laws, > i.e. restrictions that the author has no control over. Maybe.. or maybe a statement in the "use" column. I'd have to think about it a bit more, but I"m tempted to say that "foobar" is non-free if the source is not available even if the laws of the author make it illegal for him to distribute the source. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgpvMt7PrIdaw.pgp
Description: PGP signature