Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify the "as-is" license?

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
>> Why not directly use the FSF freedoms:
>> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>> your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
>> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>> (freedom 2).
>> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>> (freedom 3).
>
>> I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the
>> cases of current "as-is" packages.
>
> This has been suggested before, but for license groups. The problem
> is that the four freedoms are good criteria for Free Software, but
> there's no good mapping to the elements of most non-free licenses.
>
> Try it yourself for a few concrete cases (of non-free licenses in our
> tree), and you'll see what I mean.

I tried it on two non-free packages that I maintain (bitstream-cyberbit
and radeon-ucode) and it works well there:

bitstream-cyberbit: 0 but not 1, 2 or 3.
radeon-ucode: 0 and 2 but not 1 or 3.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn