You are not logged in.
I was thinking about a real example. apsfilter is (GPL custom:postware), I do not think Klemm actually becomes angry if you do not send the post card to him... Yet, it is not a true pure GPL. It would be excluded?
Depends on whether the FSF has proven it GPL compatible or not.
But the problem is, if we start tagging licenses as "GPL compatible" other licences want this as well ("MIT compatible", etc. pp.)
Personally I can't understand all this senseless modification some people do to well known licenses...
---
I found this mail interesting :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 01187.html
Yeah, I think the mail is quite important if you don't just care about user preferences but also legal stuff that concerns the whole distribution:
> IMHO we should do something about the handling of non-free software in
> our distribution. If we keep doing things this way, sooner or later
> we'll run into legal problems.
>Thats a good point. We need to agree on something like the "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines" (DFSG).
Last edited by gummibaerchen (2007-08-01 00:07:37)
Offline
It is not a real legal problem.
I would go this way: we make a mistake and violate a licence, the firm offended send us an email, we fix. End.
No firms like to waste dollars for problem that can be solved with an email.
Offline
It is not a real legal problem.
I would go this way: we make a mistake and violate a licence, the firm offended send us an email, we fix. End.
No firms like to waste dollars for problem that can be solved with an email.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. Going through the CVS a lot of packages have already better PKGBUILDs in HEAD, just waiting for a new release of the software.
So if there won't be a day where everyone pushes the most recent PKGBUILD, it'll take a long time until all licenses etc. are the way they should be.
Offline