From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Giovanni Biscuolo Subject: Re: Difference between Scintilla's license and ISC Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:03:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87pnn88z0k.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> References: <87blytrf6o.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <20190619135241.GA4954@jurong> <87pnn9mz5f.fsf@elephly.net> <87sgs58q1i.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> <20190619204909.GA14599@jurong> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58257) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hdsGm-0002Wr-Nf for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:18:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hds2g-00029N-3g for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:03:37 -0400 Received: from ns13.heimat.it ([46.4.214.66]:57962) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hds2f-000288-ND for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:03:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190619204909.GA14599@jurong> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Andreas, unfortunately the discussion process for OSI approval of the HPND [1] license was practically null :-), so I cannot find more info about that specific "without fee" in the license There isn't discussion on https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:HPND also Andreas Enge writes: > I do not get why the license can be free with the non-commercial > clause. At first I was also tricked to understand "without fee" to mean non-commercial, precisely that "without fee" is related to "distribute this software". Reading the first sentence four times, we can also read "without fee" related to "Permission to..." **and** "use, copy, modify and distribute" "for any purpose", including commercial one Anyway I agree with Bruce Dodson [1]: =C2=ABThe notice has ambiguities that make it hard to recommend=C2=BB > What am I misunderstanding? The above one is my personal interpretation of the ambiguity coming from "without fee", anyway the fact that this license is GNU and OSI approved (as GPL compatible one, also) is a guarantee :-) ...and is Historical! :-D HTH! Gio'. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190620074602/http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ez= mlm-cgi?3:sss:6305:jggiiehpeekebdbmpopm =2D-=20 Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEERcxjuFJYydVfNLI5030Op87MORIFAl0LPb0ACgkQ030Op87M ORIfvxAAlZNOv1+RkCWoBIV4pRJvkI7j+qv80DYWWEp3dup7fj5KgIuO6kJrnXcL IuPkCcbJ5aoTaQwFRHQ6uHHAIdS4CFA5gR2N0WQr9SP7+a+C8pYKksYXb/q/ZGCG 8eOXXNCxk+XMySghr/Q/tAvkhNa+D1myC52keMPd9yPEOyiVHK1xCYguiwEXhBNU 3zHPpEcz5K0yl58qP1HLgIfV54iI3OnZPVhIiDCQ0JSTo6P9/sfWPL8xhGPpSXBp svun4qjrIv2fiU0kq0n1hJqTHNBtCyGofUdVrloC+Nd8bJmS21zi45+Xk3rkJkX0 r9iJCCdc+0pbdR957PgLnHWG0k8X+TiZYGI89RprpFydtR1KN9VgM2kifp6ya92l QnkwSBSVz9lCXAyaUBkueUufDhyGitxqoe8+VlQEUq2XyWqZmrg3EF7DIqMNrlGu qsuTKcr4OeLhunqm+vIvpuJETyPRDINvruqHP0rsoO1t/IhrUpBbq6WTXMHkugNw FAstuvOfIXH6nhnecoqv5rF2c+PcLVDkuJ8C8sGldusmXK2AkKVPc0PDK6ZY7xAU F5jFvlUcWkEybmfzTQE3CJ51xGUS82D41VOFfOvAC2QD4M4iG54ReKTP6TRKJyDP 4z7SMJStn/lgnrm6ZDhZQ9Y0Om6j7fDD+VVnINYo5uYR2UXWp5w= =rTl9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--