On Sun, 30 May 2004 09:06:18 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > * question: "Such a restriction is exactly as silly as it sounds. > > However, some otherwise free programs come with licenses that > > specify that the program must not be sold alone but only as part of > > an aggregate software distribution." > > Do you regard those programs as free? Is there any consensus on d-l > > about this awkward restriction? > > I believe the general consensus is that since the requirement is so > trivially satisfiable, it is considered free.
Ah, I see your argument. Well, you're right that a trivial workaround exists for such a restriction. As a consequence, the restriction is almost absent. Awkward, but almost absent... > As long as there is no > restriction on how much additional software must be included, the > requirement could be satisfied by either: [...] > * a one byte file containing "w", which would be a valid sh script to > run the "w" command. Wow! TSSSITHOCS! (The shortest shell-script in the history of computer science) ;-) -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
pgp7EIZAdLjRY.pgp
Description: PGP signature