Re: [directory-discuss] Are "community editions" acceptable entries?

[Greg Rundlett (freephile)]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:00 AM, David Seaward <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi all,

I was thinking of adding an entry for "PyCharm Community Edition", the
Apache 2.0 licensed version of the PyCharm Python IDE. There is a
proprietary version with extra features called "PyCharm Professional
Edition".

I have picked up (somewhere) that it is preferred not to endorse
software applications where there are free and non-free versions with
the same name. Does this rule of thumb apply on FSD?

If not, common sense suggests that I only link to the GitHub repo at
https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/tree/master/python and
not to: the PyCharm website, support forums, and other places that
offer and link to both versions. Any other gotchas to watch out for?

disclaimer: I'm not experienced at these decisions, and certainly not authoritative on what can or can't be included.

After looking at the "Requirements" page for the directory (http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Requirements), there are a lot of sub-licenses for libraries that would need to be reviewed to determine whether any of them are non-free See https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/tree/master/license  Although the Apache 2.0 license is compatible (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html), there may be components (libraries) that make "PyCharm Community Edition" non-free software and ineligible for the Directory.

hth,

Greg

Greg Rundlett

http://eQuality-Tech.com

http://freephile.org

 

Similar logic would apply to Chromium, VirtualBox and others so a
final word on this would be appreciated (even if the conclusion is
that these things need to be handled on a case-by-case basis :D ).

Thanks,
David