[Nix-dev] Re: Separating free and non-free packages, again

[Tony White]

2009/11/24 Ludovic Courtès <ludo at gnu.org>:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Tony White <tonywhite100 at googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
>> So Mozilla Firefox is classified as non-free because of the mpl.
>
> The referred page reads:
>
>  Mozilla Public License (MPL)
>      This is a free software license [...]
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>

Hi all,
The point I way trying to make was that free in nixpkgs means gnu free
because Ludo says it's this :
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Ludo :
"This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it
incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL
and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We
urge you not to use the MPL for this reason."

That means that it is a free software license but in nixpkgs it should
be classified as non-free because a module covered by the GPL and a
module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together.

I did not write that the mpl is not a free software license. It does
however, restrict freedom because of a legal technicality and should
be labelled as non-free in nixpkgs.

Thanks,
Tony