| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 21/04/15 20:20, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> There are several licenses in @OSI-APPROVED that the FSF explicitly |
| 6 |
>> lists as nonfree, namely Artistic, NOSA, and Watcom-1.0. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I wonder if we should introduce an FSF-NONFREE group which would |
| 9 |
>> contain either all licenses from [1], or only the conflicting ones. |
| 10 |
>> Then users could set their ACCEPT_LICENSES variable to e.g. "-* |
| 11 |
>> @FREE -@FSF-NONFREE" in order to avoid software released under such |
| 12 |
>> licenses. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> wat. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> 1. I don't understand the usecase. Why not just do "-* @FSF-APPROVED |
| 17 |
> @FREE-DOCUMENTS" if you care explicitly about FSF-approval -- or "-* |
| 18 |
> @FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED @FREE-DOCUMENTS" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Because this doesn't work. Without accepting everything in the |
| 21 |
FSF-APPROVED, OSI-APPROVED, and MISC-FREE groups (i.e. @FREE-SOFTWARE) |
| 22 |
you cannot install even the system set. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> 2. I think this is a needless layer of clunkyness. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> 3. I think the name is very weird. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> 4. I think making a group based on this criteria is really weird in |
| 29 |
> the first place. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> - -1 from me. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Currently we are ignoring the issue of conflicting FSF and OSI |
| 34 |
decisions, which I believe is not a good solution. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
A possible alternative would be that we reassess these licenses |
| 37 |
ourselves and modify the FREE-SOFTWARE group accordingly. For example |
| 38 |
(assuming that we would reject all three conflicting licenses): |
| 39 |
FREE-SOFTWARE @FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED @MISC-FREE -Artistic -NOSA -Watcom-1.0 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Thinking that we can do such license assessment better than the FSF |
| 42 |
and the OSI with their lawyers might be overconfident, though. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Ulrich |
Archives