On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus > (and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake > happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:15:26PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > The summary I linked to was about reworked X-Oz license, which is > clearly GPL-incompatible and probably non-free. However, clause 4 > criticized in the summary is identical to a clause in the license that > started this thread, and all the other X licenses, and very similar to > the 3-clause BSD license. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the main reason I objected to the compelled-advertising clause in the X-Oz license was that we could not determine what it *meant* according to the licensor. We asked them, and in response, their representative promised replies and failed to deliver, and indulged in digressions on Heideggerian existentialism. (I trust people curious to confirm the above statements can review the list archives for themselves.) I don't see why you consider this determination to be an "egregious mistake". I don't know what business we have declaring licenses whose terms we don't understand as DFSG-free. -- G. Branden Robinson | The Rehnquist Court has never Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it branden@debian.org | did not like. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Dean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature