On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 06:40:59PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On 6.XI.200 at 7,43 Sam TH wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 02:19:01PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> > > Sam TH <sam@uchicago.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > > > It can't be DFSG compliant if they have a "Free OS's only" clause.
> > > >
> > > > That was my entire point. If you run a Free OS, then it acts like a
> > > > DFSG compilant license (I think, it's based on the IBM Public License,
> > >
> > > No, bacause DFSG don't allow such premisses. Therefore it's not even
> > > DSFG compliant on a DFSG compliant operation system.
> >
> > I said "acts like a DFSG compilant license", not "is DFSG compiant".
> > I know perfectly well it isn't DFSG compiant.
>
> Why do you think the clause "only free OS's" is not DFSG compliant?
> There are many free OS's, not only Debian.
It doesn't violate clause 8. It violates clause 1. You can't
distribute OpenMotif on, for or with Solaris, say. Clear violation.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
Attachment:
pgp8s3P1slvMu.pgp
Description: PGP signature