Re: flowc license
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> Both. They *are* lousy licenses to endorse, and some people *do* try
> to use it as a trump card to defeat rational analysis of these
> licenses. Realistically, even if everybody at the time thought they
> were free according to the DFSG, they might have been *wrong*. Eris
> knows it happens often enough; accurate license analysis takes
> discussion on the order of *years*. It only takes one small bug to
> make a license non-free, and the law is unforgiving of bugs.
Oh, come off it. Everyone knew what the bugs with 4-clause BSD were in
'97, and I find it hard to believe that people thought the Artistic
license was anything other than a confusing mess even then.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: