* "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.
> 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.
So long,
Alfie
--
DPL has 5 RC bugs! News at 11!
-- antifuchs in #debian.de about regulating
maintainer-behavior in the policy
pgpGuyqgmGCBg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
