Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've been considering releasing (as a patch) a separate nagware version > of Ion, which would have a license without the 28-day clause. The patch > is included as a draft (without any accompanied permission yet to treat > it as an insignificant change). Presently it checks the latest release > redirection [1] every 28 days. An annoying call-home feature, I know, > which would not be featured in the standard release (including my > ZeroInstall feed). As is apparent from the README changes, the patch > requires luacurl [2]. Discuss it if you want. I however doubt that the > unconstructive distros motivated by ideology and maintaining their own > power, would accept even that, although the resulting license should be > "free" (and would be GPLv3 compatible, if based on it intead of LGPLv2.1).
Given GPLv3, any distro could take it out too, so you'd be relying on the cooperation of maintainers (whom you already consider uncooperative or you wouldn't be trying this, right?) Or am I missing some licensing language (that wouldn't meet the DFSG, if it *prevented* people from removing the code, rather than merely asking...) > And yet, the package management system is the right place for this kind > of features, not programs themselves (reinventing a half-assed package > management system). Hmm, what would that look like as a package management feature? just "new version available" (like synaptic does - if you provided your own repository you'd have that now) or do you mean just complaining to the end user that "these packages are stale"?
