2009/11/24 Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]>: > Hi Pjotr, > > Pjotr Prins <[email protected]> > writes: > >> There is also a group of non-free packages that is free for academic >> use. Would it make sense to have a third 'type'? > > To be clear, this is about “free” as in freedom, not as in gratis > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). So presumably your > example would count as non-free. > > Thanks, > Ludo’. > > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >
Hi all, The naming convention should actually be gnu-libre, libre and non-libre, to avoid confusion IMO. Because Ludo is saying classify free as gnu (And the gnu ideas leave very little room for anything else,) It's pretty much mostly only gnu software that can be placed in the nixpkgs free selection. According to the fsf, free software licenses should be gnu gpl compatible. See here : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html So Mozilla Firefox is classified as non-free because of the mpl. Hence why gnu icecat exists. So as you can imagine, there is a whole host of other software that is not strictly gnu free (gnu-libre.) We know that there is plenty of free software available on the internet to download, use, study and distribute that does not follow the gnu definition, or even use a gnu license. The gnu definition is clear but it's also niche and extremist. I guess the decision has already been made but I just thought I'd point out that everyone has the freedom to define what they believe the term "Free software" Actually means if they have created software that they believe is "Free." Worldwide law does not exist. The free software foundation is a registered charity and not a law firm. The gnu free software definition is a definition of what the fsf believe free software should be and not a standard specification. But Pjotr as far as any kind of libre software goes, being able to just use the software without conditions, whether it's libre open source or whatever; is a pretty important factor. So only free to use if it's for academic purposes software would be classified as a non-free selection in nixpkgs. I don't think the guys want to break it down any further than free or non-free, even though there is not always a fair or clear distinction to draw between the two. Getting Nixos approved by gnu is actually the reason why this discussion started so that the separation between free and non-free software could be done. So think : Can it be distributed to everyone by default? On a CD, DVD or by http? As a first question when drawing your own conclusion but then instead just ask : Does it follow the gnu ideas and is it distributed under a gpl compatible license? To decide if software is classed as gnu free software and suitable for the "free" selection in nixpkgs. Because a no to any of those questions means it's non-free. Thanks, Tony _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
