Hi, On 02:33 Fri 22 Oct , Hanno Böck wrote: > > We're good to have it in MISC-FREE ourselves, as redistribution and > > everything else is free. > > Erh, no. MISC-FREE is for free and open source software and is more or less > the same as Debians free software guideline. That's the whole purpose > of it.
I agree here, it is not MISC-FREE. > It can go to BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE. If you wanna make a list of licenses > that > are "more or less free with restrictions" (however you define that), I'm fine > with that, but I'd like to keep everything that's indirectly in the @FREE-set > to be just that. Regarding BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE, the file says: # As proposed: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6c950b46c50fe72ebc5e650bbf70f77c.xml # Excerpt of the rules for this license group: # - MUST permit redistribution in binary form. # - MUST NOT require explicit approval (No items from @EULA) # - MUST NOT restrict the cost of redistribution. # - MAY require explicit inclusion of the license with # the distribution [1] # - IFF there is an explicit inclusion requirement, USE=bindist # MUST cause a copy of the license to be installed in a file # location compliant with the license, The nauty license *does* restrict the cost of redistribution. So what is it? An EULA? Cheers, Thomas -- Thomas Kahle
pgp35TjfOhoTP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
