On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:48:47 +0100 Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix - <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2009, "Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix -" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Ruben Rodriguez Perez wrote: > > > >>> Its problem is the absence of *explicit* permission for > >>> modifications: > > > >>> Permission is granted to all sentient beings to use this software, > >>> to make copies of it, and to distribute those copies > > > >> The four freedoms don't look like they are being challenged, or am I wrong? > > > > Given that copyright prohibits modification, and the license doesn't > > grant permission for modifications, I think it's not enough for freedoms > > #1 and #3 to be respected :-( > > > > (3) any unapproved changes in functionality are either > (i) only distributed as patches > or (ii) distributed as a new program which is not called 9wm > and whose documentation gives credit where it is due > > > this provides for a change .................. > > it expects a change ..... > > you need to do (i) or (ii) depending on how you implement the change > > it is like mozilla > The permissions this license grants to recipients are listed at the beginning of it: that is, permission to "use this software, to make copies of it, and to distribute those copies." The permission to modify it is not included in this list. The rest of the license is detailed conditions for the acts listed above - conditions for using, copying and distributing the software. So, despite the language in (3), it seems this license does not *explicitly* grant permission to modify the software. Probably this is not what the author intended, but IMHO this license is (sadly) too vague to be free. (I am not a lawyer!) -- Ziro <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
