gnewsense-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] rus-ispell License Clarification


From: Chris Andrew
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] rus-ispell License Clarification
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:15:17 +0100

Lee,

I second your final paragraph.

Cheers,

Chris.

On 27/09/2007, Lee McCafferty <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure you could sign this off as free. Like you said, there
> are no obvious restrictions on this package. I would interpret this
> license as free but not copylefted. The line that allows for
> distribution of binaries of modified source suggests that modified
> versions could be closed up, but the original package remains free.
>
> I'm not familiar with how ispell works, but I would imagine that patches
> for the package would be in source code format and therefore fine. Even
> if patches were in binary format, I would doubt that it affects the
> freedom of the original package.
>
> The original ispell program has a similar license. It allows for
> distribution of source or binaries, and although this is considered
> sub-optimum by the FSF (because it is not protected by copy-left) it is
> still free software as it does not deprive users of any of the four
> basic freedoms.
>
> I understand your hesitance, because the language in licenses can be
> vague at best. If you are still unsure, try e-mailing the maintainer
> with your questions. For what it is worth, I would be comfortable
> signing that package off as free.
>
> Lee
>
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 18:37 +0930, Rhys Moyne wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a question about the final package
> > in MAIN/ r. The license states:
> >
> > > Permission to use, copy, redistribute is granted.  Permission to
> > > redistribute modifications in patch form is granted.  Permission
> > > to redistribute binaries made of modified sources is granted.
> > > All other rights reserved.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure that this can be classified as free software but I want
> > to make sure. Specifically, I'm wondering about the modification in
> > patch form part.
> >
> > Looking at the Free Software Definition, it seems that this license
> > gives the user all four freedoms, so I suppose it is free software, but
> > I'd just like to make sure.
> >
> > Can anyone else help confirm this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rhys.
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFG+3LTyoyuVp8cSLgRApWiAKCJhZ4xTfkAbYfV3uPK55frL5TxlgCfdyF5
> > +RxOhg6HrQgPZqqOAxICMhY=
> > =dpQa
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gNewSense-users mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gNewSense-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
>


-- 
Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:

http://www.getgnulinux.org/

A great GNU/Linux distro:

http://wiki.gnewsense.org/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]