| 1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:40:08 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or |
| 5 |
>> "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the |
| 6 |
>> @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such |
| 7 |
>> packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE". |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> As long as it is also marked with the BSD license I don't have a problem |
| 10 |
> with this. The license is, in fact, BSD, so we do need to keep that |
| 11 |
> info around. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What about two licenses, BSD, and BSD-no-sources? The second license |
| 14 |
file would simply note at the top that there's no source available, but |
| 15 |
the license is BSD, with the BSD license underneath the note. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That would allow the first to be included in @FREE, while the second was |
| 18 |
only included in @BINARY_REDISTRIBUTABLE. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 22 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 23 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives