[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repol
From: |
Ulrich Mueller |
Subject: |
Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Jan 2021 21:36:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2021, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > Only a special class of derivative works can be distributed freely,
>> > and it sounds like some of these would fall under "fair use" anyway.
>> > Certainly this isn't enough to qualify as a free software license?
>> >
>> > However, this document itself may not be modified in any way,
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS,
>> > except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or
>> > deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case
>> > the rules applicable to copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR
>> > Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it into
>> > languages other than English.
>>
>> Then it is not free.
> Forgive me for a possibly naïve question, but why on earth would you
> want to modify a schema?
I think the core question isn't if the files can be modified, but if
their license allows including them with a free software package.
At least if you apply the usual criteria mechanically, I believe the
answer would be "no".
> It's the same as modifying a physical law. Would you say that E = mc²
> is "non-free" because it cannot be meaningfully modified at will?
That's an awful analogy. For example, you can modify (i.e. generalise)
the formula to E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ for an object with nonzero momentum. :-)
- Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, (continued)
- Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/25
- Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/25
- Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/26
- Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/26
- Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/01/26
- Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/27
- Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Jean Louis, 2021/01/24
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Ulrich Mueller, 2021/01/24
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Jean Louis, 2021/01/24
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/24
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el,
Ulrich Mueller <=
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/25
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/01/26
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Richard Stallman, 2021/01/28
- Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/01/28