remove outdated file which we do not link to

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 116 deletions

diff --git a/english/intro/license_disc.wml b/english/intro/license_disc.wml
deleted file mode 100644
index 5a0b9894bc1..00000000000
--- a/english/intro/license_disc.wml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,116 +0,0 @@
-#use wml::debian::template title="Comparison of Software Licenses"
-
-<P><STRONG>******This document is under development*******</STRONG>
-
-<P>People who have been around Open Software tend to develop very strong
-opinions about licenses. Beginners don't worry about them as much
-since they are more concerned with finishing the task at hand and
-don't understand the long term implications of choosing software with
-one license over another (it is doubtful that there
-many people who understand the nuances of licensing that don't have
-strong opinions on the matter).
-
-<P>Over the years a number of licenses have gained prominence as they
-give software authors the type of control over their creations that
-most developers desire. It is still common to find software that has
-no copyright visible or contains a unique license developer by the
-author. The last can be quite annoying to distributors of software
-(both on-line and people who create CDs) as many of these licenses
-contain <A HREF="#mistakes">common mistakes</A> which make the software
-difficult to distribute.
-
-<P>What follows is a list of common Free (Open) software licenses and
-some good and bad points of each.
-Only the points in the license relevant to the discussion are shown.
-Also, many points are listed under the heading "GOOD/BAD".
-These are points that can be either good or bad, depending on your point of view.
-
-<UL>
-<LI>The <A HREF="https://www.gnu.org/">GNU General Public License (GPL)</A>.
-	<BR>
-	<B>SUMMARY:</B> source code must be made available; software may be sold;
-	derived works must use the same license
-	<BR>
-	<B>GOOD:</B> There is good reason this is the most used license for Free (Open)
-	software. It does a good job of protecting the rights of software developers
-	and the availability of source code guarantees that users won't have to worry
-	about losing support in the future.
-	<BR>
-	<B>GOOD/BAD:</B> Software released using the GPL cannot be incorporated into
-	commercial software.
-	Whether this is actually a bad thing depends on your
-	point of view. People developing commercial software often feel frustrated
-	when there is a solution available that can't be used because of conflicts in
-	licensing. Of course, there is nothing stopping them from
-	contacting the author and seeing if they can buy a version using a different
-	license.
-	Most people who release software using the GPL do not consider these restrictions
-	bad, because it allows others to use and improve the software while it prevents
-	(for all practical purposes) others from making money off of their hard work
-	without their permission. 
-
-<LI>Artistic License
-	<A HREF="http://language.perl.com/misc/Artistic.html">http://language.perl.com/misc/Artistic.html</A>.
-	<BR>
-	<B>SUMMARY:</B> 
-	<BR>
-	<B>GOOD:</B> 
-	<BR>
-	<B>BAD:</B> 
-
-<LI><A HREF="https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause">BSD style license</A>.
-	<BR>
-	<B>SUMMARY:</B> Binaries and source code must contain the license;
-		advertising must acknowledge the developers listed in the license
-	<BR>
-	<B>GOOD/BAD:</B> Companies that want an executable to be generally available
-	   (possibly for free) without releasing the source code often like
-	   this license. A good example is a company that wants to release a driver
-	   for a graphics card. Open Source advocates would prefer that the company
-	   release hardware specifications anyway. If the development of drivers
-	   for XFree86 is indicative, the best drivers are those written with
-	   source available. Companies are only making their products look bad by
-	   releasing proprietary drivers that are slow and buggy. They can also
-	   save development costs by letting others develop the driver for them.
-	<BR>
-	<B>GOOD/BAD:</B> Anyone may take the source, modify it, and release the
-	   result without releasing the changes. Whether you think this is good or
-	   bad is a personal preference.
-</UL>
-
-<HR>
-
-<P><A NAME="mistakes">Some common mistakes in self-written licenses</A>:
-<UL>
-<LI>Either not allowing, or restricting for-profit sale of the software.
-	This makes it difficult to distribute the software on CD. People often
-	make the mistake of using terms that are not well defined, such as 'reasonable cost'.
-	It is better to simply use one of the licenses mentioned above as they accomplish
-	the same thing without resorting to such phrases.   
-	For example, by allowing anyone to distribute the software, the GPL keeps the
-	costs down by the usual market forces. If someone is selling a CD with a high
-	profit margin it won't be long before competitors enter the market and sell
-	for a lower price.
-	<BR>Note: the Artistic License does use the term `Reasonable copying fee', but
-	qualifies the term in an attempt to make it less vague.
-<LI>Not allowing distribution of modified versions of the software.
-	This hinders distribution of the software by certain groups. For example, since
-	Debian distributes compiled software, it is often necessary to modify the source
-	to get it to compile or to make it comply with the
-	<A HREF="ftp://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/linux/docs/linux-standards/fsstnd/">FSSTND</A>.
-	But by doing this, we are then not allowed to distribute it.
-<LI>Requiring that all changes to the software be reported to the author. While it is
-	a good idea to report changes/improvements to the author so they can be more widely
-	distributed, making it a requirement can cause problems. How many people know
-	where they will be in 5 years?
-	Simply change it to 'Any changes to the software should be reported to the author'.
-	Most people will.
-	<BR>This clause is usually included to prevent branch projects from developing.
-	History has shown that, as long as development on the original code doesn't stall,
-	branches will only succeed if some other force drives the split.
-<LI>Stating that the software is public domain, but then adding constraints (such as
-	not allowing sale for profit). Either something is public domain or it isn't - there
-	is no middle ground. Such licenses are meaningless and it is likely that the extra
-	conditions would not be upheld in court.
-</UL>
-