On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:42:05AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:48:39PM +0200, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
>
> > > So you think a Gentoo-like way of distributing the software would work
> > > around the licensing issues?
> > I'm not sure; if so, I guess it depends on the "end user" not redistributing
> > the linked code, for some definition of redistributing. Do I have to rerun
> > ld
> > on each machine with gnuplot+libreadline? What if the machines have
> > multiple
> > users? I should probably be careful to inform my users that
> > /usr/{local/,}bin/gnuplot may not be copied, which is a bit difficult to
> > understand, knowing that when I use a Debian machine, I see:
> >
> > "The programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are free
> > software;"
> > ...
>
> I am not following you and would not take it for granted. The
> `freeness' of the software you got from Debian is guaranteed free (in
> the sense of the DFSG) according to the Debian social contract, but
> this does not prevent any other local adjustment by its admin on the
> machine you are using.
But it is coded that way to start off with, simply disabled. What is the
difference between distributing software with a
--break-someone\'s-GPL-license configure switch, and a flag in
/etc/default/illegal: export BREAK_SOMEONE\'S_GPL=true
--
TimC
I read [.doc files] with "rm". All you lose is the microsoft-specific
font selections, the macro viruses and the luser babblings.
-- Gary "Wolf" Barnes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
