Suggesting a package for inclusion?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
I am a member!
I use this text-based microblogging client,
and think it would be a great
thing to have packaged in the Trisquel repository. The licenses for it
and its dependencies look like they pass muster.
Thoughts?
Dave Hunt
В 16:02 -0400 на 04.10.2011 (вт), Dave Hunt написа:
> I use this text-based microblogging client,
> and think it would be a great
> thing to have packaged in the Trisquel repository. The licenses for it
> and its dependencies look like they pass muster.
>
>
> Thoughts?
Is this even free software (FSF definition)? It does not use any widely
known (to me at least) free software license. On the site it is said it
is distributed as freeware under Floodgap Free Software License. Reading
the license it seems it is really freeware. It is stated at the
beginning of the license that the software is released at no cost, but
it is not Copyleft or GPL. I assume this makes it GPL incompatible, but
still does not make it non-free. Later it is said it is forbidden to
sell or rent the package, or derivative works made out of it. I say this
is not free software. Anyone else?
> Is this even free software (FSF definition)? It does not use any widely
> known (to me at least) free software license. On the site it is said it
> is distributed as freeware under Floodgap Free Software License. Reading
> the license it seems it is really freeware. It is stated at the
> beginning of the license that the software is released at no cost, but
> it is not Copyleft or GPL. I assume this makes it GPL incompatible, but
> still does not make it non-free. Later it is said it is forbidden to
> sell or rent the package, or derivative works made out of it. I say this
> is not free software. Anyone else?
The package might be sold while including e.g. GNU Emacs with it, but it
must be also provided gratis (unlike OFL).
The requirement to copyright derivative versions is strange, it's not
obvious for me if it might prevent including public domain
modifications.
GPL incompatibility is bad, but it doesn't prevent a package from being
included in free distros, unlike, most probably, the selling
restriction.
Since the license is complex and uses strange definitions, it's very
possible that it has other problems.
On 04/10/2011 14:02, Dave Hunt wrote:
> I use this text-based microblogging client,
> and think it would be a
> great thing to have packaged in the Trisquel repository. The
> licenses for it and its dependencies look like they pass muster.
Hello!
From the license text:
"The Floodgap Free Software License (FFSL) has one overriding
mandate: that software using it, or derivative works based on
software that uses it, must be free. By free we mean simply
'free as in beer' -- you may put your work into open or
closed source packages as you see fit, whether or not you
choose to release your changes or updates publicly, but you
must not ask any fee for it."
This means you can't charge for redistributing TTYtter, thus it
isn't Free Software (think of "free speech", not "free beer").[1]
[1] https://gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
--
Allan Aguilar
https://editorialhah.wordpress.com
Mail: name at domain
XMPP: name at domain
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios