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

Re: License review for lsblibchk

        b) if you wish to make changes as defined in clause 2 and 3, and
         distribute a modified version of this package, then
        clauses 3c and 4c are required

This seems to me to be problematic.  Normally the Artistic License is OK 
because 3a and 4b provide a very simple, free modification-distribution 
option.  Restricting to 3c and 4c makes it much more restrictive, even akin 
to the GFDL's Invariant Sections.


            c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not
            conflict with standard executables, which must also be
            provided, and provide a separate manual page for each
            non-standard executable that clearly documents how it
            differs from the Standard Version.

This appears to be an even stronger requirement than TeX, and not at all a 
reasonable one.


            c) accompany any non-standard executables with their
            corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the
            non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly
            documenting the differences in manual pages (or
            equivalent), together with instructions on where to get the
            Standard Version.

This is effectively an 'invariant program' requirement which doesn't even 
allow the modified programs to use the same names as the originals.

Doesn't look free to me.

--Nathanael Nerode

Reply to: