dtufs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Michael Poole writes: > > One sign is the frequent use of alternatives [...] > In reality [...]
No matter who is correct, I think it is unhelpful to imply that others are not dealing in reality, especially on matters of opinion. My reply is abbreviated because this licence seems uncontroversially non-free due to forbidding private use: > This might be true. However, it does not affect the > 'free software status' of the license (it is clearly > required that "source code of your product or of the > modified version must be freely and publicly > available"). [...] > > 2. This product is provided under the terms of this > license > > (agreement). Any use, reproduction, distribution, > or modification > > of this product or any of its parts constitutes > recipient's > > acceptance of this agreement." > > > > I don't think V.2 will stick in the US for plain use > of the software, > > Section V.2 is actually equal to Section 5 of the GPL, > which says: > "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program > (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your > acceptance of this License" The GPL does not cover use, while Truecrypt's licence does. So, they are not equal. [...] > The statement that the "license is not clearly unfree" > is vague and potentially misleading. It actually has > had negative consequences: The false statement of the > editor of the Debian news mailing list who wrote at: > http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/26/ the > following: "Michael Poole answered that the license > isn't free at all". You might want to correct him. DWN, debian's own tabloid press, has been misreporting for years, as previously mentioned in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00403.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00144.html Please tell anyone who doesn't already know that. Fortunately, it links through to what Michael Poole actually wrote (and so to my reply), so this error should be obvious. > [...] My own overall > analysis of the license concludes that it is actually > as "free" as GPL (actually even more free than the > GPL). Your analysis seems incorrect, as illustrated by an example above. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
