On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:25:42AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this > > now. > > Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license? > (You can change "ls" all you want as long as you rename the binary)
It seems to boil down to "forcing renames is free if it doesn't matter". Forced renaming ls doesn't matter, since you can symlink it, and so on. It'd just be really obnoxious. That also seems to boil down to "if it doesn't actually work, why keep it in the license?" If you can remap the filenames, why force us to rename them at all? And if you can't remap the filenames in *all* cases, such your changed version is used by default in a distribution, then the restriction does matter--and then seems non-free. I've stopped trying to follow all of the technical discussion on whether the facilities are "good enough" or not, since it seems like this can be figured out at a much higher level. If it lets you do anything and everything you could do without the restriction, it's free but pointless (since it lets you do whatever you're trying to prevent); otherwise it's not free. (IMO.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
