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

Re: Bug #298195: ITP: tinywm -- Ridiculously tiny window manager

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 07:59:11AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[🔎] 20050306054847.GC22549@hezmatt.org> you wrote:
> > That licence does not grant any permission to modify,
> > redistribute, or otherwise deal in the work in a Free manner.  For it to be
> > judged as satisfying the Open Source Definition is ludicrous.
> Are you an Laywer, is that based on research?

No, and yes.  

> I mean, for me "Use" of source code does include all those freedoms.

That's nice.  But irrelevant.  The fair licence doesn't even require source
code, so it can quite easily apply to a work for which there is no source. 

In the past, some copyright holders have decided to interpret even
widely-known and free licences like the MIT licence in non-free ways (cite:
pine), so having the wording of a licence be explicit and clear is a
definite advantage.  This licence is neither.

> Therfore I feel like accepting OSI's decision and accepting the fact that it
> is free.

I feel like an icecream sundae.

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: