| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: |
| 4 |
>> IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement - |
| 5 |
>> -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for |
| 6 |
>> non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a |
| 7 |
>> statement of more or less public domain |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> - -..etc... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Why not directly use the FSF freedoms: |
| 12 |
> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). |
| 13 |
> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does |
| 14 |
> your computing as you wish (freedom 1). |
| 15 |
> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor |
| 16 |
> (freedom 2). |
| 17 |
> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others |
| 18 |
> (freedom 3). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the |
| 21 |
> cases of current "as-is" packages. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This has been suggested before, but for license groups. The problem |
| 24 |
is that the four freedoms are good criteria for Free Software, but |
| 25 |
there's no good mapping to the elements of most non-free licenses. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Try it yourself for a few concrete cases (of non-free licenses in our |
| 28 |
tree), and you'll see what I mean. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ulrich |
Archives