| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I have one question: The license can be GPL-compatible but the |
| 4 |
> software itself non-free. So binary-only packages distributed under |
| 5 |
> e.g. BSD license should remain BSD or not? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yes, if it's BSD licensed then it should have LICENSE="BSD". |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the |
| 10 |
> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm aware that we can't distinguish the two cases. Should we have a |
| 13 |
"binary-only" license to catch it? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ulrich |
Archives