Talk:AROS Public License

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the AROS is clearly an example of Free Software according to the GNU definitions, according to the summary of consensus at https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00272.html it is not appropriate to consider it a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence in that it mandates the onerous burden of making source code available for 12 months after the software is no longer being offered. It is not a strong copyleft license, but it is also too restrictive to the licensee who shares the software to be considered Free according to Debian standards. I object to the characterization of anything which is not a strong copyleft as permissive, as then this software would need to be classified as Permissive Onerous Free Software, which is clearly a self-contradiction. Castlan (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]