Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 15:32]: >> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> * Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]: >>>> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it >>>> discriminates against people trying to sell the software. >>> >>> Thats one of the reason why we put software that is "for non-commercial >>> use only" into non-free. Your point was? >> >> You appear confused: "for non-commercial use" does not restrict the >> distribution, but rather the use of the software. > > Ah, right. But from what I know we put software that restricts the > distribution in non-free, too. Otherwise it would be a horror for our > vendors to notice it. They depend on that they are allowed to distribute > the CDs for profit.
Certainly -- but this is irrelevant to the argument thread above. The MIT/X11 license is suitable for Main, non-commercial-use-only licenses for non-free. We all agree on that now, right? >> For example, if I had a copy of Emacs with a license "for >> non-commercial use only," I could not use it to write programs for >> pay. > > Couldn't care less *ducks* But I know what you mean. Just wait for Microsoft ElNViMs. Fourteen different command modes and none of them work...