| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the |
| 4 |
>> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm aware that we can't distinguish the two cases. Should we have a |
| 7 |
> "binary-only" license to catch it? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The license isn't binary-only. The license is BSD. It just happens |
| 10 |
that the thing they're licensing is the binary and not the source. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Does it really matter? Before we start overloading the LICENSE flag |
| 13 |
to represent something other than the license we should probably have |
| 14 |
a problem to actually fix. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As far as freedom of code goes, arguably the code is perfectly free - |
| 17 |
it just isn't open source. You could legally decompile, modify, |
| 18 |
recompile, and redistribute it and your assembly language sources as |
| 19 |
much as you like. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives