On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:24:55 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > Comments will be appreciated - both about the general angle of > > attack, and about my specific draft. I have probably forgotten about > > a detail here and there. > > First comments
Antoher couple of comments:
* "A derived work can be anything from a slightly modified versions of
the original work to a completely new work that includes parts of the
original work in a new contexts. The term also includes translation of
works into other languages, compilation of programs to machine code or
bytecode, and other transformations that prepare the work for being
used."
typo: s/versions/version/
typo: s/contexts/context/
proposed generalization: s/bytecode/pseudo-code/
or maybe s/bytecode/intermediate languages/
* "Rationale: A user in a remote location (say, any computer that is not
connected to the Internet) must have the freedom to contract with a
business to create a copy of the software and transport it to him. If
the licensing of the software prevents the business from getting a
profit out of this, the software is not truly free."
question: why such a complicated example?
Free software is not against business. It just aims to a different (and
better) kind of business (with respect to proprietary-software based
business).
In other words: if commercial distribution is prohibited by the license,
then it's clearly non-free software.
I cannot see the need for a strange example to explain this...
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
pgp9Eqt9DBVo8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
