On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 06:15:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I think I'll probably end up agreeing with you if I consider this long > enough. However it would make things much simpler if you could think > of a case where this limitation would affect our users' freedom in > some important way.
If people do only what we expect them to do, they don't need freedom. Or, more cynically, we can tell them they *have* freedom, when they don't, really, because they never leave the little boxes we've placed them in. > For example, how is this different than requiring that the software > say it is based on xinetd version x.y.z? It's different on its face. What's unreasonable about declaring that the software is based on xinetd version x.y.z? Anything? Then why isn't that sufficient under the xinetd license? > does this license require me to keep printing the version number? It doesn't appear to. Is that good or bad thing from a licensing standpoint? Does this license prohibit removal of version numbers altogether? You tell me. Do we say the "pet a cat" license[1] is DFSG-free because it's too hard for the copyright holder to verify compliance? > Are there any cases where the version number could become part of an API > and I'd be unable to be compatible with some future version of xinetd > because I cannot change the version number? The license does not restrict itself to human-interpreted-only version numbers, so I guess not. > Would this license get in the way if I wanted to take parts of xinetd and > use them in other projects? It doesn't seem to consider that possibility. Is it DFSG-free to prohibit code reuse in other projects? [1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html -- G. Branden Robinson | It's extremely difficult to govern Debian GNU/Linux | when you control all three branches [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Feehery
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
