[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: repo criteria changes

From: Yuchen Pei
Subject: Re: repo criteria changes
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:56:10 +1000
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.2

Richard Stallman <> writes:

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

I think you are right about "publicly accessible".

It is important to rule out lack of license.

I don't want to make the requirement more strict by requiring works of art and opinion to have free licenses. So I would like to use this

<li id="A4"><p>Does not permit nonfree licenses (or lack of license)
      for works for practical use, in publicly accessible
      repos. <strong>(A4)</strong></p></li>

<li id="A4-1"><p>Does not permit nonsharing licenses (or lack of
      license) for any works in publicly accessible
      repos. <strong>(A4-1)</strong></p></li>

What is a nonsharing license? I assume nonsharing licenses are nonfree, but not the other way around.

I find this difficult to read to have both A4 and A4-1, and I think that just A4 itself is sufficient, as (given the above assumption) cases covered by A4-1 but not A4 (does not permit nonsharing licenses for nonpractical works) is out of scope of free software.

PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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