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

Re: Still about licensing...

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Frederic Lehobey wrote:

> Hi,
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:42:05AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:48:39PM +0200, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> > > So you think a Gentoo-like way of distributing the software would work
> > > around the licensing issues?
> > I'm not sure; if so, I guess it depends on the "end user" not redistributing
> > the linked code, for some definition of redistributing.  Do I have to rerun ld
> > on each machine with gnuplot+libreadline?  What if the machines have multiple
> > users?  I should probably be careful to inform my users that
> > /usr/{local/,}bin/gnuplot may not be copied, which is a bit difficult to understand, knowing that when I use a Debian machine, I see:
> >
> >   "The programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are free software;"
> >   ...
> I am not following you and would not take it for granted.  The
> `freeness' of the software you got from Debian is guaranteed free (in
> the sense of the DFSG) according to the Debian social contract, but
> this does not prevent any other local adjustment by its admin on the
> machine you are using.

But it is coded that way to start off with, simply disabled.  What is the
difference between distributing software with a
--break-someone\'s-GPL-license configure switch, and a flag in
/etc/default/illegal: export BREAK_SOMEONE\'S_GPL=true

I read [.doc files] with "rm".  All you lose is the microsoft-specific
font selections, the macro viruses and the luser babblings.
              -- Gary "Wolf" Barnes

Reply to: