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

Re: AT&T source licence?

On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 04:00:21PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sat 3 March 2000, at 15 h 52, the keyboard of Henning Makholm 
> <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
> > > interested in is under this licence. Does anyone know it? It seems clearly 
> > > non-free, but not too much non-free :-}
> > 
> > We have discussed it before. 
> A list of non-free licences, as well as the reasons they are non-free could be 
> useful. rms would certainly blame us to advertise non-freeness, but it could 
> be useful.

The non-free world doesn't seem to use the same few licenses over and over
like the free world does. So I don't think listing the licenses would be
that useful. And why they are non-free - look at the DFSG. It's pretty
clear. It could possibly use some unofficial annotations about some of
the ramifications of the clauses - obeying US law is the only one that
comes to mind of the top of my head.

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with
square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are.
   -- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU

Reply to: