CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 10/08/22 22:38:25
Modified files:
philosophy : selling-exceptions.html
Log message:
Clarify that selling exceptions typically allows LESS than the X11
license would allow, not the same range.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
Patches:
Index: selling-exceptions.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- selling-exceptions.html 4 Mar 2010 17:29:17 -0000 1.5
+++ selling-exceptions.html 22 Aug 2010 22:38:22 -0000 1.6
@@ -103,10 +103,11 @@
this implication. Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an
inferior choice, but it's not wrong.</p>
-<p>In other words, selling exceptions permits some embedding in
-proprietary software, and the X11 license permits even more embedding.
-If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make
-selling exceptions unacceptable.</p>
+<p>In other words, selling exceptions permits limited embedding of the
+code in proprietary software, but the X11 license goes even further,
+permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in
+proprietary software. If this doesn't make the X11 license
+unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable.</p>
<p>There are three reasons why the FSF doesn't practice selling
exceptions. One is that it doesn't lead to the FSF's goal: assuring
@@ -179,7 +180,7 @@
<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/03/04 17:29:17 $
+$Date: 2010/08/22 22:38:22 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
