Re: license questions.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 07:10:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Fredrik Persson <frepe@bredband.net>
> > We may all express them differently, but I'm pretty sure that RMS's "four
> > freedoms" are the foundation on which we all base our conception
> > of Free software.
>
> Yes, with the proviso that we don't necessarily agree with everything
> else RMS says about free software. Just to give one example, in
> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, RMS says
>
> | It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have
> | distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a
> | copy of it, you must send one.
>
> which we (i.e., the consensus interpretation of the DFSG) flatly
> disagree with.
Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified)
Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an
example of a DFSG-free licence.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: