On 24/09/12 09:15 AM, ChÃ*-Thanh Christopher Nguyá»…n 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)
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, ChÃ*-Thanh Christopher Nguyá»…n 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.
Clarify the "as-is" license?
