Re: repo criteria changes

[Yuchen Pei]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> 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
> text.
>
>   <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. 

Best,
Yuchen

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature