[linux-elitists] Re: RPM non free?

Jeremy Hankins nowan@nowan.org
Tue Apr 6 18:56:13 PDT 2004


Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes:

> Anyway, I don't see how the license for elfutils is "non-free" by any
> means.  Do you care to explain why you think it is not so?

Glancing at v2.0 (which is evidently only tangentially relevant), I see
these issues:

#5 places a distribution-like burden on certain types of use (e.g., use
as part of a web server and you must distribute source).

#9 (the clickwrap bit) requires you to get agreement to the clickwrap in
order to distribute.  E.g., no ftp distribution.

#10 terminates the license if you get involved with a suit with a
licensor over "a patent applicable to software", or against anyone else
over a patent applicable to some version of the work.  Sorry IBM, you
can't threaten SCO with your patents or you lose your license to this
work.

#11 seems unpleasant as well, but I don't think it makes it non-free,
just icky.


All of the above is just MHO, of course.  I realize this doesn't quite
answer your question, but I didn't feel like digging up the 1.0 version.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list