Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
Scripsit Sven Luther <email@example.com>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 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].
I don't think the "3" is good for anything at all. Except perhaps for
reinforcing false assumption that every problem with the DFSG can be
pinpointed at exactly ones of the prongs in the guidelines.
> 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.
Perhaps not in certain jurisdictions.
Henning Makholm "Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no,
all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere."