Re: [Fsfe-uk] Stalls at Marxism 2003

[MJ Ray]

Chris Croughton <address@hidden> wrote:
> By the FSF/RMS's definition.  But by my definition of 'free' saying "you
> can't link my library with yours unless you do what I say" isn't free
> either, that's my point. [...]

"Yet Another Definition of Freedom" is best discussed somewhere else.
Possible debian-legal or gnu.misc.discuss.  Add salt to taste.  AFFS
has always been clear on what definition of free software it uses.
The one that agrees with FSF, Debian et al and allows licences like
the BSD, LGPL, GPL, Artistic...

[...]
> I use a modified BSD licence which says, basically, "you can do what you
> want with your own code, just ensure that /mine/ stays free".  No
> conditions on what you link with it, or even what you compile it into,
> the only conditions are "say that it's mine, say if you changed it" [...]

You use "a modified BSD" but one with the Obnoxious Advertising Clause 
still in it?

Followups off-list, please.

-- 
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
      http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://address@hidden
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
       Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."