Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

Gerfried Fuchs <alfie@ist.org> writes:

> * "Brian T. Sniffen" <bts@alum.mit.edu> [2003-09-02 15:32]:
>> Gerfried Fuchs <alfie@ist.org> writes:
>>> * Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> [2003-09-02 18:46]:
>>>> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it
>>>> discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
>>>
>>>  Thats one of the reason why we put software that is "for non-commercial
>>> use only" into non-free. Your point was?
>> 
>> You appear confused: "for non-commercial use" does not restrict the
>> distribution, but rather the use of the software.
>
>  Ah, right.  But from what I know we put software that restricts the
> distribution in non-free, too. Otherwise it would be a horror for our
> vendors to notice it. They depend on that they are allowed to distribute
> the CDs for profit.

Certainly -- but this is irrelevant to the argument thread above.  The
MIT/X11 license is suitable for Main, non-commercial-use-only licenses
for non-free.  We all agree on that now, right?

>> For example, if I had a copy of Emacs with a license "for
>> non-commercial use only," I could not use it to write programs for
>> pay.
>
>  Couldn't care less  *ducks*   But I know what you mean.

Just wait for Microsoft ElNViMs.  Fourteen different command modes and
none of them work...