On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:15:23AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. Some people don't know what's wrong with them *now*. It seems disingenuous to assume that people were less stupid in history. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature