Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:25:42AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
> > now.
> Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
> (You can change "ls" all you want as long as you rename the binary)
It seems to boil down to "forcing renames is free if it doesn't matter".
Forced renaming ls doesn't matter, since you can symlink it, and so
on. It'd just be really obnoxious.
That also seems to boil down to "if it doesn't actually work, why keep it
in the license?" If you can remap the filenames, why force us to rename
them at all? And if you can't remap the filenames in *all* cases, such
your changed version is used by default in a distribution, then the
restriction does matter--and then seems non-free.
I've stopped trying to follow all of the technical discussion on
whether the facilities are "good enough" or not, since it seems like
this can be figured out at a much higher level. If it lets you do
anything and everything you could do without the restriction, it's
free but pointless (since it lets you do whatever you're trying to
prevent); otherwise it's not free. (IMO.)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org