| 1 |
Ulrich Mueller posted on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:31:09 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> [...] and GPL-1 is not considered free software, AFAIK. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Why would that be? There are fairly small changes from GPL-1 to GPL-2. |
| 8 |
> The only important one is the addition of the "Liberty or Death" [1] |
| 9 |
> clause (section 7 of the GPL-2). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably |
| 12 |
thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that GPLv1 |
| 13 |
had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is why it was |
| 14 |
no longer considered free software, as it impinged on the user's freedom |
| 15 |
to use as they wish. Pending further research, therefore, I'll just say |
| 16 |
I seem to have been mistaken. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 20 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 21 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives