PROPOSAL: licensing guidelines

Wichert Akkerman wichert at
Wed May 17 08:44:33 PDT 2000

Previously Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Yes, but we should not define an API for which there isn't any free
> software.

Could we please define free is DFSG (or OSD) compliant?

> Requiring the use of a GPL library would mean that commercial vendors
> wouldn't use that part of the standard, which defeats part of the
> purpose of having a standard base system.

The same reasoning prevents us from using motif with its current license.


 / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience  \
| wichert at           |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 245 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list