-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 24/09/12 09:15 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >> IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement - >> -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for >> non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a >> statement of more or less public domain >> >> - -..etc... > > Why not directly use the FSF freedoms: The freedom to run the > program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the > program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish > (freedom 1). The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help > your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your > modified versions to others (freedom 3). > > I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the > cases of current "as-is" packages.
Yep, it would. Still, however, need the standard "Provided 'AS-IS' with no disclaimer of warranty blah blah" statement which afaik would not be included in any way in the FSF list (unless one of those freedoms would actually be 'The freedom of the author to have no repercussions whatsoever brought against them as a result of the program's use or mis-use', of course) > >> ..and then ebuilds can include the particular phrases that >> apply? ie, LICENSE="(as-is free-non-commercial)" , essentially an >> 'assemble-your-own-license' from the snippets. > > We would maybe have to find a different operator for license > concatenation. > I don't know if an operator would actually be necessary; i just figured ()-wrapping would asthetically differentiate these from additional licenses that might be tagged on (ie if part of the package was also GPL-2) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBgX0sACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBdtwD9HVqCMlBKh6dNvylp+6bC5PMx GezaE4DdeEU7n86E4JcBAJ+GG+zQ4MkMAj9cjP1qBXD3MkpzocjNz+u4OlRI1AU4 =waBv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
