Talk:AROS Public License

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)