>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >> IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement - >> -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for >> non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a >> statement of more or less public domain >> >> - -..etc... > Why not directly use the FSF freedoms: > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does > your computing as you wish (freedom 1). > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor > (freedom 2). > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others > (freedom 3). > I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the > cases of current "as-is" packages. This has been suggested before, but for license groups. The problem is that the four freedoms are good criteria for Free Software, but there's no good mapping to the elements of most non-free licenses. Try it yourself for a few concrete cases (of non-free licenses in our tree), and you'll see what I mean. Ulrich
