<quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" date="Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:29:14AM -0700"> > I was looking at the change log for vrms 1.13, and can't understand why > this is listed as non-free. It is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Which allows users to > copy, distribute and transmit the work. As well as to adapt the work. > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)
For a while, ActualRMS did like not any Creative Commons license because the brand also stood for licenses which he felt were unacceptable. CC (the organization) has since retired those licenses and Richard supports those licenses. The BY and BY-SA licenses certainly seem free to me. They contain an anti-DRM clause that some people on Debian-Legal have suggested might be non-free but it is similar, and less extensive, than a similar clause in the GFDL which the project voted on and decided met up the requirements of the DFSG. In any case, VRMS and ActualRMS are not the same. VRMS complains about packages in the non-free repository. Questions about whether packages belong in that package are important ones, but they are not ones to have in bug reports for the VRMS package. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
