Re: apache non-free?
Ben Collins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> As I said before, I am arguing my opinion, not the law. If Apache truly
> enforces the definition (and it is up to their definition, not the law)
> of "derivative" as any modification, no matter how slight, then surely
> Apache is non-free, as far as the DFSG is concerned.
Huh? No, not at all. The DFSG does not require the right to name the
package whatever you wish, which was intentional, to enable TeX
(despite the restriction on naming) to be considered free.