PROPOSAL: licensing guidelines
wichert at soil.nl
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
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 liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 245 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20000517/048e0950/attachment.pgp
More information about the lsb-discuss