Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to
> make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing
> obligations apply upon source code distribution.
I'm puzzled by this phrasing. Don't you mean binary (or any)
distribution? At that point, many licences put obligations upon you.
> The issue at hand is the superset that the Free Software Foundation has
> now declared to be a Free Software licence:
Can you demonstrate where this contradicts their Free Software Definition?
This does not appear to be news, so I am surprised that you feel a need
to highlight it on this list.
> This appears to be a very broad ("in any way") test for a requirement to
> provide source code when electronically communicating with a client ("in
> any way to provide a service, including but not limited to delivery of
> content").
I agree that the wording of this part seems a little broad. It is more
a question of whether we can take it at face value. The Google problem
is well-known, I thought? There are all these millions of users who are
not able to adapt the software they use...
[...]
> believe there is stigma attached to packaging software classified as
> non-free and in many cases it is just as accessible to Debian users.]
I disagree with you. I think packaging for non-free does little to help
us achieve our aims. I would love to see non-free go away, but that's
a different discussion.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
