From: Steve N. <uso...@bu...> - 2015-06-23 19:55:01
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > I'm still reviewing the packages to ensure they're all open source > compliant. > > What are we considering acceptable in this regard? Are we going only with > software which has been made available under one of the GNU licenses > exclusively? Obviously programs which are free but have no source available > should be excluded (e.g. Pegasus) but if the source code is freely > available and/or public, yet not explicitly released under the GPL, does > this also suffice for inclusion? Personally - this is just my opinion - I would use this guideline: a program is open source if the source is freely available to use, modify and redistribute (in any combination, commercially or noncommercially). Or, in other words, the same idea as https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html . That's just my opinion though. -uso. |