On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:38:49PM -0600, Nick Welch wrote: > (not sure if i can post to this list, but what the hey) > > > That's not a free license. In fact, it's about as non-free as you can > > get, since it's essentially "all rights reserved"; there's no > > permission to modify or redistribute at all. We can't distribute this, > > even in non-free. > > > > Here's the text: > > > > Use of the works is permitted provided that this instrument > > is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the > > works is notified of this instrument. > > > > DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY. > > > > Usual example of why random people should not be writing licenses. > > It's the fair license, which is OSI approved: > http://opensource.org/licenses/fair.php
Thanks for pointing this out. Now we have a concrete example of just how screwed up OSI is. That licence does not grant any permission to modify, redistribute, or otherwise deal in the work in a Free manner. For it to be judged as satisfying the Open Source Definition is ludicrous. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
