On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 15:02, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Hm. I'm going to go read some copyright law and collect variants of > the BSD license and see what I think after a few weeks of that. Until > then, I'll let those with louder arguments figure out the X11/X.org > issue. The language in question is used in almost every X11-variant license I know of, in all manner of software projects. It's definitely all over X. So I don't think your conclusion really matters. If these license terms are deemed non-free, it will point out one of two things: 1. The criteria Debian applies are too strict, because we are finding a free license non-free, or 2. Free operating systems are decades behind proprietary operating systems to the point of uselessness, because we will no longer have a free networkable graphical infrastructure. Debian will be forced to choose between accepting "non-free" software in main, or losing basically every user. The X11 license is pervasive in the free software community, and it was before Debian, or Linux. Therefore, I think interpretations that lead to the X11 license being non-free are prima facia wrong, since the free software community was defined initially by the people distributing software under this and other licenses. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part