From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: Re: w3m: 'license'; error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle'
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:59:08 -0500
Message-ID: <87d2w1s60j.fsf@tines.lan>
References: <878v6spyx3.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87y5esk9s6.fsf@tines.lan>
	<201302131143.06301.andreas@enge.fr> <874nhfkhcl.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87liaq13h2.fsf@tines.lan> <87liapbq2d.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55747)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1U6RRQ-0003ME-C5
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:59:31 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1U6RRK-0002nN-W5
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:59:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87liapbq2d.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:38:02 +0100")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:

> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
>
>> I asked RMS, and he thinks that this clause is okay because it says a
>> "distribution fee" is okay and does not limit the amount.  Thus, what it
>> prohibits is a fee for the right to use the program, which is okay.
>
> Great, thanks for investigating.
>
>> Apologies for paraphrasing RMS rather than quoting him directly, but I
>> forgot to ask whether it was okay to publish what he wrote in private
>> email.
>
> In the future I think it=E2=80=99s better if we work with the gnu-linux-l=
ibre
> list, where there are knowledgeable people lurking (from gNewSense,
> Trisquel, etc.), as it would allow us to share efforts with them (and
> vice versa ;-)).

I did not intend to preempt that suggestion, but rather to augment it.
I wanted to know RMS's opinion, but I want to hear the opinions of other
knowledgeable people as well.  Any volunteers to raise this question on
the gnu-linux-libre list?

Still, until we hear otherwise, I think we can tentatively assume that
the license is okay, and proceed with the w3m packaging.

      Mark