> > This software is licensed for any purpose excepting > > the right to make publicly available derived works > > which depend exclusively upon non-free components.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: > TL;DR Summary: > > My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open > Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first > reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. > It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU > Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. > and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. > but fail to > satisfy the conditions of the Copyfree Standard Definition. It > appears to qualify as a copyleft license, but a somewhat atypical > example of a copyleft license, in that its proliferation mechanism is > not tied directly to proliferation of itself. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
