Re: [Fsuk-manchester] HPL

[Ben Webb]

Also, it seems like peta wouldn't be able to use it in their animal
shelters - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#On_euthanasia
- kind of ironic really.

On 24 May 2010 09:11, Pete Morris <address@hidden> wrote:
> Is it a joke/proof-of-concept licence, or does it have more political 
> intentions (i.e. preventing shared libraries being used in the firmware of 
> weapons systems etc.)? If the latter, what about non-lethal weapons? How do 
> you define "harm" -- is RSI caused by coding too much considered "harm"?
>
> All seems a bit vague to me.
>
> Pete
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Dave Page
> Sent: 21 May 2010 23:03
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Fsuk-manchester] HPL
>
> On Friday 21 May 2010 22:22:23 Luke Taylor wrote:
>
>> Essentially it is BSD but with the clause that you may not use the software
>> to harm animals or humans. (Surely this restriction makes the software
>> non-free?)
>
> It amuses me that PETA hasn't realised that humans *are* animals.
>
> This is clearly a non-free software license since it's in direct violation of
> freedom 0 (the freedom to run the software for any purpose)...
>
> Dave
> --
> Dave Page <address@hidden>
> Jabber: address@hidden
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fsuk-manchester mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fsuk-manchester mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester
>
>



-- 
Ben Webb - http://www.freedomdreams.co.uk/blog