Re: re: licensing question
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user |
|---|---|
| Organization | The XEmacs Project |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <[email protected]> writes: Andrew> Well, this isn't strictly a restriction on redistribution, Andrew> it's a one-off hoop-jumping requirement. The distinction Andrew> lies between these two licenses: A one-off restriction is still a restriction if you've only got one copy. That copy is *not* free, and control of individual copies is the fundamental mechanism of copyright. I'm really surprised that that kind of sophistry persuaded anybody who matters at Debian. Even if it persuades a court, I don't see why Debian should shy away from labelling such restrictions "non-free". Andrew> If there's one thing I learned from debian-legal, it's Andrew> that most people do not understand licensing, a Andrew> significant number of upstream authors do not care about Andrew> it, and the vast majority of licensing issues arise from Andrew> simple ignorance. Sure, but none of those are the case here. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.