Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 à 10:01 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit : > The issues I see related to Freeness are: > > * The requirement to keep source code available for 12 months, even if > you are no longer distributing the binary, and even if you distributed > the source code along with the binary. I think this is only poor wording. The code must available, but the previous sentence says it can be either on the same media or on the internet. With a strict interpretation, that means it must be available for 12 months on the internet, or, if on distributed on e.g. a disk, it must not self-destroy during this period. > * The requirement to maintain a LEGAL file. I don't think this one is really a problem; it's similar to the GPL saying you must mark your modifications as such. > * The choice of venue clause. Right, this one is much more obnoxious, and it is also probably the one the author is the less susceptible to fix. > I also have a suggestion for how to deal with these issues. Given that > the license change is recent (two days ago), why don't we just point out > to upstream that the license is not GPL-compatible, which would pose a > problem for anyone building GPLed frontends to BitTorrent or other > software that builds on BitTorrent (such software already exists), and > request that he dual-license BitTorrent under this license and the GPL? > We could point out that Mozilla, previously under the MPL, decided to > dual-license (and later tri-license) for the same reason. This will > prevent us from having to go into detail on these license issues, which > are harder to explain (and harder to convince people that they aren't > just Debian ranting, which seems to be a far-too-common opinion :( ). Sounds like a good idea. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=