On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 04:00:21PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat 3 March 2000, at 15 h 52, the keyboard of Henning Makholm > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > interested in is under this licence. Does anyone know it? It seems > > > clearly > > > non-free, but not too much non-free :-} > > > > We have discussed it before. > > A list of non-free licences, as well as the reasons they are non-free could > be > useful. rms would certainly blame us to advertise non-freeness, but it could > be useful.
The non-free world doesn't seem to use the same few licenses over and over like the free world does. So I don't think listing the licenses would be that useful. And why they are non-free - look at the DFSG. It's pretty clear. It could possibly use some unofficial annotations about some of the ramifications of the clauses - obeying US law is the only one that comes to mind of the top of my head. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are. -- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU