From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: w3m: 'license'; error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle' Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:43:53 -0500 Message-ID: <87liaq13h2.fsf@tines.lan> References: <878v6spyx3.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87y5esk9s6.fsf@tines.lan> <201302131143.06301.andreas@enge.fr> <874nhfkhcl.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35981) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6F1n-0004zx-98 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:44:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6F1l-0008SQ-5R for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:44:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <874nhfkhcl.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:56:58 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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?= Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Andreas Enge skribis: > >> Additionally, the file matrix.c looks non-free to me: >> "3. No charge is made for this software or works derived from it.=20=20 >> This clause shall not be construed as constraining other software >> distributed on the same medium as this software, nor is a >> distribution fee considered a charge." >> >> So maybe it needs to be patched out, if possible? How come debian contai= ns=20 >> the file? > > It=E2=80=99s not in http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist so I g= uess > it=E2=80=99s a question for the gnu-linux-libre mailing list. Any volunt= eer? 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. He was actually slightly more concerned about whether it allowed distribution of modified versions: Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and redistribute Overall, he said that with its most natural intepretation, it is a free software license, but that it is not clear. He asked me to attempt to contact the library authors for clarification, but in the meantime I think we can consider this license acceptable. 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. Mark