Dear Eelco, On 25 June 2014 13:59, Eelco Dolstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25/06/14 12:46, Louis Bettens wrote: > > > This makes me wonder what /free/ means. > > We should clarify this in the docs, but I would say "free" according to > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html or > http://opensource.org/docs/osd. I agree that a clarification in the docs would be a good idea. Going by the GNU definition SZip, in particular, offers all but freedom 0. "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". The OSD is a bit more complicated. But, SZip seems to violate the first item (Free Redistribution) as well. Concerning the license meta attribute: As I understand the definition in [1] we could actually apply `unfree-redistributatble` to SZip. Because, the license does not distinguish between source, or binary distribution. In any case you're not allowed to use it for commercial purposes. But, if that does not apply to you, then you are allowed to redistribute it modified, or unmodified, in source, or binary form. I.e. once you made sure that you're not using it for commercial purposes, you can at least profit from the hydra build service. Correct? Best, Andreas [1]: http://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#sec-meta-license
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
