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

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

* "Brian T. Sniffen" <bts@alum.mit.edu> [2003-09-02 15:32]:
> Gerfried Fuchs <alfie@ist.org> writes:
>> * Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> [2003-09-02 18:46]:
>>> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it
>>> discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
>>  Thats one of the reason why we put software that is "for non-commercial
>> use only" into non-free. Your point was?
> You appear confused: "for non-commercial use" does not restrict the
> distribution, but rather the use of the software.

 Ah, right.  But from what I know we put software that restricts the
distribution in non-free, too. Otherwise it would be a horror for our
vendors to notice it. They depend on that they are allowed to distribute
the CDs for profit.

> For example, if I had a copy of Emacs with a license "for
> non-commercial use only," I could not use it to write programs for
> pay.

 Couldn't care less  *ducks*   But I know what you mean.

 So long,
DPL has 5 RC bugs! News at 11!
                    -- antifuchs in #debian.de about regulating
                       maintainer-behavior in the policy

Attachment: pgpms09uRXZKY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: