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

Re: Is vrms really still a Virtual Richard M. Stallman?



On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 06:47:34PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> > Roland Stigge wrote:
> > > debian-legalint
> > I don't think this is a good idea.
> Me neither. A "virtual debian-legal" would be something that analyzed
> licenses:

Only if you assume a virtual foo does everything the regular foo does.
"vrms" hasn't written any patches for emacs, afaik, eg.

> $ debian-legalint COPYRIGHT.foo
> COPYRIGHT.foo:33: warning: mentions specific protocol standard
> COPYRIGHT.foo:57: talks about "best efforts" to contact upstream
> COPYRIGHT.foo:64: US export control laws

$ debian-legalint realplay
Component: non-free
Limitations:
 no-source
 non-debian
 no-redistribution
 single-computer-at-any-time
 backup-okay
 no-reverse-engineer
 non-commericial-use-only
 ...

$ debian-legalint single-computer-at-any-time
realplay
...

Something like that would probably be both useful and feasible, and it's
not particularly inappropriate to call it "legalint". (The "debian-" seems
a bit gratuitous though)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Attachment: pgpfWsCcvqjNH.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: