Le 2011-06-19 06:57, Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 6/19/11 11:25 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
Could you suggest another description that we could use that would be
more appropriate for us?
I think that we should use "free software license, preferably copyleft"
Just "free software license" linked to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html would exactly match with the
RMS quote on http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/ and would
include both free-permissive licenses (Apache) and free-copyleft
licenses (LGPL).
Anything else would be a new interpretation of the original statement
and would exclude (or discourage) some free software from the extensions
repository, but of course the Steering Committee is free to decide on
the policy of the LibreOffice websites regardless of RMS's quotes from
months ago.
Regards,
Andrea.
Thanks Andrea,
This make more sense for now.
I also agree that the SC should maybe take this up on a confcall for a
discussion as to their philosophy on use of "free software" or if they
decide to be even more specific "copy-left licensing". I think this is
an important point to take up taking into consideration the latest
situation with questions to the ASF licensing issues.
Cheers,
Marc
--
Marc Paré
http://www.parEntreprise.com
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/website/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
