| 1 |
Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: |
| 2 |
> IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement - |
| 3 |
> -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for |
| 4 |
> non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a |
| 5 |
> statement of more or less public domain |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> - -..etc... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Why not directly use the FSF freedoms: |
| 10 |
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). |
| 11 |
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does |
| 12 |
your computing as you wish (freedom 1). |
| 13 |
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor |
| 14 |
(freedom 2). |
| 15 |
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others |
| 16 |
(freedom 3). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the |
| 19 |
cases of current "as-is" packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> ..and then ebuilds can include the particular phrases that apply? |
| 22 |
> ie, LICENSE="(as-is free-non-commercial)" , essentially an |
| 23 |
> 'assemble-your-own-license' from the snippets. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We would maybe have to find a different operator for license |
| 26 |
concatenation. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives