On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > My understanding is that in general it does not, due to the clause > > "You may not modify in any way a file of The Program that bears a legal > > notice forbidding modification of that file," but revtex's upstream version > > 4 > > can still be considered as free since none of its files bears such a notice. > > I believe that interpretation is correct; in the same vein, other > licenses (the OPL, for example) have optional clauses that, when not > invoked, pass the DFSG.
Yup, the consensus seems to be that unused clauses of a license don't affect the freedom of the work. Note that use of such a license DOES place a higher burden on the packager, as you now need to check each file in a new version to see if the package has become non-free. With a "purely free" license, you only need check that the license has not changed. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
