On 12/06/2014 10:04 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
>
> Regarding 3, I would prefer 3a over 3, but really, I'd prefer to see
> *clearer* indications of licenses, not muddier.
> (If license were visible in aptitude it would be nice...)
>
*** +1

Indeed, it would be much easier for downstream derivatives to be able to
consider the licensing approach. I've had an issue with MIT software
with core modules using GPL2-only, and thus incompatible with GPL3+ and
AGPL. GPL-compatibility would be a nice indication to have, especially
when designing a Blend.

Such (hopefully rare) licensing mix situations arise as well with
emulators released under the GPL but requiring hardware with proprietary
blobs to run, or proprietary compiler to build, as you mentioned.

>
> In the end, I'd rank it thus:
> 1 > 5 >= 1a > 3 > 3a > 2
>
*** Honestly, 1 is fine, 5 would enable entering the FSF 100% libre
list, and the others would just break compatibility with Debian for no
clear advantage, so not worth considering, IMO.

==
hk

-- 
 _ _     We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
(_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/