Re: Open Content Licence is non-free?
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> a new documentation package of min has been rejected by ftpadmin:
> The license's restrictions on distribution for money make it non-free.
> Well, the license is the OpenContent License, see
> I thought (and this is what I remember from a thread in
> debian-policy), that the license is DFSG-complient, no?
The license is DFSG complient unless one of the two optional clauses at the
end are invoked. The text that references the opencontent license will say
if one of those terms is enabled, they are off by default.
see shy jo