On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 12:37, Mark Rafn wrote: > On 17 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > > Another example: Suppose the Python module "foo" has a similar > > restriction. Is it really free to claim that "foo" is free when I > > cannot fix a bug in "foo" and have that bug fix work in all the programs > > on my system that "import foo"? > > Yet another example: Would we consider it acceptable to rename "ls" to > > "lsf" (for "ls fixed") as a legal requirement for fixing a bug in it? > > At some level, this type of requirement is unenforceable, isn't it? One > can always name it "lsf" and create a wrapper "ls" that execs it. "lsf" > satisfies the license by having a different name, and the wrapper is brand > new code so not encumbered by someone else's copyright. > > It's gross, and I lose respect for the software author who put the stupid > requirement in the license, but it doesn't stop me fixing it nor > distributing the result, so it's free enough for Debian.
I see your point, gross as it is. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
