Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> > > >> good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
> > > >> Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
> > > I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example,
> > > is _very_ broad.
> > Yes, I know. So is 5, which makes it a lot less efficient for the
> > purpose I suggested. Still, that was only an example; and if it is to be
> > implemented, it should have an advisory character, at best.
> The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
> non-free had
> Non-DFSG: 3
What about : Non-DFSG: 3 [rationale for 3].
> and a tool that parsed that displayed
> This package is non-free because
> - it does not allow modifications and distribution of modified source.
And now, the tool would show :
- it does not allow unhindered distribution of modified sources
bacause of : rationale for 3
Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
licence which will legally be able to stop you from modifying any piece
of source code you may have, as long as you don't distribute it.