OT: Opinion, best open source license to use?

Anthony de Boer adb-SACILpcuo74 at public.gmane.org
Thu Sep 8 02:00:15 UTC 2011


Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>  ...  And in the case of firefox specifically,
> the license does not permit the use of the name or graphics if any of
> that is changed, which makes it not qualify as free software (if you
> can't change the icons, then you aren't free to modify the program,
> so it isn't free software).  So as a result, the icons and name has to
> change to make it free software.  Fortunately the source code itself is
> free, so it can be done with minimal changes.

I'd see that more as a clause that says that if you want to fork the
software, you have to make it *CLEAR* that you're on a fork by also
changing the name/icon/whatever.

I've seen things as small and stupid as some luser giving a Squid
developer grief because advice including the place the project put some
of its files wasn't "correct" on a Red Hat box because the distro
modified things to their Linuxy places.

(The lack of agreement between various *ix flavours as to where stuff
goes, /usr/local or /usr, /etc or /usr/local/etc, /opt, yadda yadda,
is a mess in which would-be developers of portable software and
users thereof can both blame the promulguators of this wide selection
of standards.)

-- 
Anthony de Boer
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists





More information about the Legacy mailing list