FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-24-2012, 01:25 PM
Ian Stakenvicius
 
Default Clarify the "as-is" license?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 24/09/12 09:15 AM, Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb:
>> IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement -
>> -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for
>> non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a
>> statement of more or less public domain
>>
>> - -..etc...
>
> Why not directly use the FSF freedoms: The freedom to run the
> program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the
> program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish
> (freedom 1). The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
> your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your
> modified versions to others (freedom 3).
>
> I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the
> cases of current "as-is" packages.

Yep, it would. Still, however, need the standard "Provided 'AS-IS'
with no disclaimer of warranty blah blah" statement which afaik would
not be included in any way in the FSF list (unless one of those
freedoms would actually be 'The freedom of the author to have no
repercussions whatsoever brought against them as a result of the
program's use or mis-use', of course)



>
>> ..and then ebuilds can include the particular phrases that
>> apply? ie, LICENSE="(as-is free-non-commercial)" , essentially an
>> 'assemble-your-own-license' from the snippets.
>
> We would maybe have to find a different operator for license
> concatenation.
>

I don't know if an operator would actually be necessary; i just
figured ()-wrapping would asthetically differentiate these from
additional licenses that might be tagged on (ie if part of the package
was also GPL-2)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBgX0sACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBdtwD9HVqCMlBKh6 dNvylp+6bC5PMx
GezaE4DdeEU7n86E4JcBAJ+GG+zQ4MkMAj9cjP1qBXD3Mkpzoc jNz+u4OlRI1AU4
=waBv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 09-24-2012, 01:48 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default Clarify the "as-is" license?

>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb:
>> IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement -
>> -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for
>> non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a
>> statement of more or less public domain
>>
>> - -..etc...

> Why not directly use the FSF freedoms:
> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
> your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> (freedom 2).
> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
> (freedom 3).

> I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the
> cases of current "as-is" packages.

This has been suggested before, but for license groups. The problem
is that the four freedoms are good criteria for Free Software, but
there's no good mapping to the elements of most non-free licenses.

Try it yourself for a few concrete cases (of non-free licenses in our
tree), and you'll see what I mean.

Ulrich
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:02 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org