On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:55:23AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: > > We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within > > Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see > > some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of > > source files. > > > > scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm: > > > > ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return > > ;;; to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they make, > > ;;; so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform > > ;;; the T Project of noteworthy uses of this software. > > Harmless. My best effort consists of waving a gerbil at my workstation > and hoping something along those lines happens. (If this were an > actual requirement, rather than a vague request, it would be a > problem. I strongly discourage people from writing noise like this > into licenses though - put it in the README where it belongs.) On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of the wording. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature