Hi, On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 02:53:27PM +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > >> Maybe it should not be described as "free" if it is indeed non-free? > > Well, it is "free" under some definition of free, but you are right that > > this might be misleading. Perhaps "freely available" would be better? > Freely distributable maybe?
Given the intention of the licence is to be free as in free software, but it fails to meet Debian's requirements (proliferation of pointless CC licences creates problems like this), I'd suggest using a construct using "dfsg-incompatible" or so. -- Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/ jo...@sindominio.net jo...@debian.org http://www.sindominio.net/ GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
