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 Lingnau ......................... firstname.lastname@example.org
> Programming graphics in X is like finding sqrt(pi) using Roman numerals.
> -- Henry Spencer
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-