On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:20:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free. ...because we don't undestand what X-Oz means when they say it. > > Since clause 4 is identical to what's contained in the X11 license, it > > makes it difficult to take the summary terribly seriously. > > Oh, wow. > > Shame on you, Branden, for placing Debian's X packaging scripts under a > non-free license! Or have you recanted from your position in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00162.html? Is this sort of remark intended to be productive, or are you just venting your spleen because you don't appear to have actually comprehended the message you cite? -- G. Branden Robinson | Those who fail to remember the laws Debian GNU/Linux | of science are condemned to branden@debian.org | rediscover some of the worst ones. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Harold Gordon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature