Re: mixmaster license
Scripsit Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
> ... and grant
> Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and
> distribute the modifications or work in its products.
> DFSG-free?
Yes, I think so.
A lot of people will not *like* it, for political reasons, but it
does not affect the *practical* side of what you can to with free
software (fix bugs, change functionality, share fixes and changes
with with friends and customers) that the DFSG is meant to protect.
> > Perhaps we need to add some notes to the DFSG explaining why clauses like
> > the above are unacceptable.
> I agree.
Yes, or at least put some reference explanations somewhere on the
web. I've been wanting to write such notes for quite a time but
have not had time to do very much. At the moment there's just a
set of headlines a http://www.diku.dk/~makholm/whatnot.html.
Anyone who wants to contribute well-written explanations
(covering the connection to the language in the DFSG as well
as why each clause is bad in the real world), please do.
--
Henning Makholm "The compile-time type checker for this
language has proved to be a valuable filter which
traps a significant proportion of programming errors."
Reply to: