[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Status of "not for commercial use license" discussion?





Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 à 09:24 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :

On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 03:09 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:


I would object to it simply because such a license is really not a free
license at all.
It also can have a viral effect if other software makes use of it.

One should be able to use Fedora and Extras without needing to worry
about what software they have installed and whether or not their usage
violated the terms of usage.

+1

Fedora is a distribution of free and open source software.


+10

Too many people already confuse FOSS with freeware and shareware without
muddying the waters any further.


We're talking about opensource here, this is no different from QT choosing GPL for a library because they don't want their work used for profit. Except these aren't libraries but programs so that path is not an option.


But I in know way intented to restart the discussion about this, we already had that last time (see archives) thats why I added the part about the software meting all FOSS criteria except that it may not be redistributed for a profit.

Now I hope that we can stop this thread, except for replies from the people who where busy investigating the legal issues about this and talking about this with RH-legal.

Regards,

Hans


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]