On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:45:45AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even > > > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than > > > licenses with "options" (which essentially makes them multiple licenses), > > > and other than questionable "interpretations", when has this actually > > > happened? > > > > The Artistic license would be the classical case. > > I don't think the Artistic license is "applied" in a free- or non-free > way--I doubt there'd be any question that all applications of it would > be considered non-free if DFSG#10 didn't confuse things. (There's no > way to apply 3c "must rename executables"+"must document" in a free way, > and that's the closest to a free alternative in #3. The "commercial > use must be embedded only" bit is a pretty clear DFSG#6 violation, too; > the application doesn't change anything.) 3a is the one normally used. The Artistic license is an example of a license which is not free by default, but which can be free in the presence of a small bushel of clarifications (including prying the stupid out of 3a, iirc) from the copyright holder. The most notable thing under such a free application of the Artistic license is perl, even though we have the GPL available as well these days. I'm not aware of any other significant uses of it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature