On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:06:25PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pjotr Prins) writes: > > > Updated descriptions. Note the non-commercial license. > > If the license scheme is along the lines of "gratis for non-commercial > use", then it's non-free software per [0] (it violates Freedoms 0 and 2) > and it would be better to use the string "non-free" as the `license' > attribute IMO.
well, 'academic use' is not the same as 'non-free' - the latter more referring to private use. I would like a distinction - as the former is less likely to infringe on package management systems. How about 'non-free' and 'academic-free' or 'academic license'? > It may also mean that it cannot be freely distributed, e.g., through > Nixpkgs channels, which you may want to indicate prominently so that the > TU Delft people don't run into troubles. Sure. I guess I can always roll my own packages. > If you are planning to contribute other packages, you should probably > ask Eelco an SVN account. Done. Pj. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
