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