On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: >> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme >> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of >> the wording. > All I found was the thread starting at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200105/msg00178.html > To me it seems to die out with no clear consensus. To me it seems to end with consensus that it is non-free: in the tree of the thread, all leaves say "non-free", except one saying "I think barely free, on the verge of non-free, but still free, but if I'm the only one thinking this, then I wont battle for my interpretation". -- Lionel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature