Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:49:51AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> Alright, I'm going to give another example here, hopefully this one will
> get through to you.
>
> Now, remember, we have _already had_ the GR that states that as far as
> the DFSG goes we don't give a damn if it's documentation or software.
>
> So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can
> do anything you want with it as long as you keep the copyright
> statements attached and don't make any changes at all to main.c, none,
> not for bug fixing, not for feature changes, none at all.
>
> Oh, and you are not allowed to delete it or keep it from being linked in
> either.
>
> Would you consider this license free? If so, you're an idiot because
> it's not even close.
>
> And we have ALREADY decided that we don't give a damn if it's software
> or documentation, the fact that it's a 'secondary' section makes not one
> damn bit of difference, it's still non-free.
Just for the sake of the argument, let's say "plugin-example.c" rather
than "main.c". What would happen to such a file? In Debian, it would be
removed. If the license permits it. If the license did not permit it,
the whole program would be removed.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: