Dear Tom! The sentence you quoted, tries to briefly explain the GPL, and obviously fails to do so accurately. Though they state before, the GPLv2 applies. I'm curious: Would you regard it free if this sentence were not there? Volker Am Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2011, 16:13:17 schrieb Tom Callaway: > On 10/17/2011 03:07 PM, Volker Fröhlich wrote: > > The headers in the various file mention GPLv2. With all the rubble in the > > license, around mentioning it was GPLv2, is this certainly free software? > > No, this license mess is non-free. In it, it says: > > "and the GPL-based source code must be made available upon request" > > A free software license cannot force a user to distribute source code > except in limited circumstances (when a corresponding binary is > distributed, or deployed as a network service). See the FSF's > comments on the original nonfree Apple Public Source License: > https://gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html > > There are other areas that make this beast non-free, but this is perhaps > the most glaring. > > ~tom > > == > Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
