Bas Wijnen <wij...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 06:57:43PM +0100, gaffa wrote: > > It's an MIT license: > > > That's a fine license as far as the DFSG is concerned, but as long as > they don't provide source, it's still not free software.
Indeed, as far as the DFSG is concerned, it needs to be applied to *specific works* with their license conditions, not license texts in isolation. This case is a clear demonstration of why asking “does this license make the work DFSG-free?” is no use absent the context of a specific work. -- \ “Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an | `\ affirmation, but as a question.” —Niels Bohr | _o__) | Ben Finney
