Re: OFL license analysis
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:04:44PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> It seems a clear test: if I can't distribute a changed version that
> can be dropped into a system without changing other software,
> it ain't free.
I'd take this just a little further, in that the user shouldn't have to
change his behavior, either. Filenames are part of the "interface to
the user", when they're binaries in the path (or symlinks to them,
eg. alternatives).
I seem to recall some renaming clauses that said "don't name the binary
'foo'", which went too far. (It's always a danger sign when licenses
start talking at so technical a level as to mention things like
"filenames" at all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: