jochen georges <[email protected]> writes: > i asked the author, how to understand the licence, here is the > correspondence:
Thank you for taking on this task. > # his answer ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Basically, don't redistribute altered source files in the > info.clearthought package. […] The only thing you can't do is fork > the original source. This is non-free, failing to unconditionally meet FSF freedom 3 (the freedom to redistribute modified versions) and DFSG §3 (the freedom to redistribute derived works under the same license terms). The license applies a restriction to those freedoms (“you can do it, but only if …”) which makes the work non-free. > i think, he just wants to avoid that there is "external" code under > his name "clearthought". Perhaps that's his intention; I don't know. If so, I would think a better instrument for that intention is trademark, not copyright. The intention you speculate may result in non-free works no matter how it is achieved. But speculation as to his intent won't answer that, so I won't. > so, what do you say? > is that free? Definitely not. If that restriction can be lifted, it may pass. -- \ “There are no significant bugs in our released software that | `\ any significant number of users want fixed.” —Bill Gates, | _o__) 1995-10-23 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
