| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Is there a real example where the license matters for something |
| 4 |
> redistributed to yourself? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Well, "yourself" is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS |
| 7 |
Windows across 300 PCs for my employer I suspect some people would |
| 8 |
have something to say about that. Heck, the RIAA wants you to re-buy |
| 9 |
music if you want to load a song on an mp3 player that you already own |
| 10 |
on CD. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
However, for most packages in the tree the issue is going to be how |
| 13 |
"free" as in whatever you want the package to be. If we're going to |
| 14 |
have ACCEPT_LICENSE in the first place it seems like this is just a |
| 15 |
logical extension of it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Rich |
Archives