[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG

We are going to have to deal with this same issue with respect to test
suites which support a "standard". There are compelling reasons for this
in a standards environment, and as long as other tests are allowed to be
added to the suite, I believe we must consider these licenses as free.

Just because the object in question is not allowed to be changed, doesn't
necessarily reduce its freedom. Declaring such objects non-free definitely
restricts its freedom.


On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Anselm Lingnau wrote:

> Joseph Carter writes:
> > That looks very non-free anyway.  No provision for patches even.
> The `auxiliary file' mentioned in the copyright notice amounts to a
> patch. It is fairly clumsy compared to `real' patch files but it works.
> Actually, it should be reasonably easy to get GNU diff to emit `change
> files' that the TeX support tools can understand.
> Anyway, even RMS considers TeX free enough to declare it part of a GNU
> system. We'd look quite silly if we were to pronounce TeX non-free.
> Anselm
> -- 
> Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
> Programming graphics in X is like finding sqrt(pi) using Roman numerals.
>                                                                -- Henry Spencer
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: