On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:54:16PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > >> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> >> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes: > >> >> > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily > >> >> find any number of people that disagree with RMS about this, so > >> >> who's right? > >> > > >> > If you or other people claim that linking is not a case of derivation, > >> > they can advance arguments about it. Your arguments will be taken even > >> > more seriously by volunteering a reasonable chunk of change to defend > >> > such an argument in a court of law. I think 1-5M US$ ought to suffice. > >> > >> Oh yes, I forgot. Whoever has more money is right. > > > > In cases of ambiguity, correct. Which is why "ambiguous" means "no" as > > far as Debian is concerned. > > Show me one case in law that isn't ambiguous. I present the licenses of the contents of the Debian archive (in the context of the DFSG; there may be licenses with ambiguities relating to things that we don't care about). The MIT/X11 license is a particularly good example. Writing non-ambiguous licenses for *free* software is easy. It's licenses for non-free software that are usually ambiguous. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature