On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:07:51 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > But anyway, I'm under the impression that it could be impossible to > > address this "problem" without doing more harm than good. > > Any "solution" I've seen so far is either utterly non-free, or > > non-free in subtler ways. > > How does it count to be non-free to be only required to release your > source code for certain kinds of uses? Easy: as an extreme example, suppose a license requires you to disclose the source for any (modified) version of the work that you *use* (even privately). This is clearly non-free, IMO. > Anyway, you have not said > whether the clause I proposed would itself make a work non-DFSG-free. I am not much interested in discussing the flaws of yet another license that attempts to close the so-called ASP loophole... Sorry. There are already several discussions about this topic in the list archives. > > > Disclaimers, as usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > > I presume IANADD means "I am not a Debian Developer". Yes, it's a quite commonly used acronym on Debian mailing lists. It's documented here: http://www.infodrom.org/Debian/doc/acronyms.html P.S.: Once again, please follow the code of conduct, and send public replies to the list only, since I haven't asked to be Cc:ed or To:ed. Thanks. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpcm89RMGURX.pgp
Description: PGP signature