Re: Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test
From: Andrea Glorioso <andrea.glorioso@binary-only.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:35:51 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 87n0k2do08.fsf@binary-only.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 87wuj8auag.fsf@becket.becket.net> (Thomas Bushnell, BSG's message of "09 Mar 2003 17:23:51 -0800")
References: <[🔎] 87wuj8auag.fsf@becket.becket.net>

>>>>> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <tb@becket.net> writes:

    tb> They are restrictions which do not preserve any important
    tb> rights of the holder of the software(like the source-provision
    tb> rules of the GPL), and they do not enhance anybody's freedom.
    tb> They are therefore onerous license terms.

So, your opinion is that the RPSL terms (specifically the terms about
redistributing modifications, of course) are onerous, too?

bye,

andrea
--
Andrea Glorioso                   andrea.glorioso@binary-only.com
Binary Only                           http://www.binary-only.com/
Via A. Zanolini, 7/b                  Tel:     +39-348.921.43.79
40126 Bologna                         Fax:     +39-051-930.31.133

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test
  - From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

References:
- Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test
  - From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Prev by Date: Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)
Next by Date: is scilab really non-free?
Previous by thread: Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test
Next by thread: Re: Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread