Re: licence for Truecrypt
dtufs <dtufs@yahoo.com>
> Michael Poole writes:
> > One sign is the frequent use of alternatives [...]
> In reality [...]
No matter who is correct, I think it is unhelpful to imply
that others are not dealing in reality, especially on matters
of opinion.
My reply is abbreviated because this licence seems
uncontroversially non-free due to forbidding private use:
> This might be true. However, it does not affect the
> 'free software status' of the license (it is clearly
> required that "source code of your product or of the
> modified version must be freely and publicly
> available").
[...]
> > 2. This product is provided under the terms of this
> license
> > (agreement). Any use, reproduction, distribution,
> or modification
> > of this product or any of its parts constitutes
> recipient's
> > acceptance of this agreement."
> >
> > I don't think V.2 will stick in the US for plain use
> of the software,
>
> Section V.2 is actually equal to Section 5 of the GPL,
> which says:
> "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program
> (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your
> acceptance of this License"
The GPL does not cover use, while Truecrypt's licence does.
So, they are not equal.
[...]
> The statement that the "license is not clearly unfree"
> is vague and potentially misleading. It actually has
> had negative consequences: The false statement of the
> editor of the Debian news mailing list who wrote at:
> http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/26/ the
> following: "Michael Poole answered that the license
> isn't free at all". You might want to correct him.
DWN, debian's own tabloid press, has been misreporting
for years, as previously mentioned in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00403.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00144.html
Please tell anyone who doesn't already know that.
Fortunately, it links through to what Michael Poole actually
wrote (and so to my reply), so this error should be obvious.
> [...] My own overall
> analysis of the license concludes that it is actually
> as "free" as GPL (actually even more free than the
> GPL).
Your analysis seems incorrect, as illustrated by an example above.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: