On Sep 10, George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote: > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been > > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any > > apparent ill effect on users. > Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has not been > accepted. Many packages entered the Debian archive by incident has been > removed. Past experience shows that licenses having choice of venue has been > avoided [0][1]. You show that the same 5-6 debian-legal@ contributors do not believe that some licenses are free, but I do not see ftpmasters removing from the archive packages with a choice of venue clause in their license (I will not believe that they do not know about licenses like the MPL and QPL). > Note: I wont reply to all your redundant mails, you can find the answers in > past discussions. This is another argument popular among the DFSG-revisionists: "we already agreed about this last year, so shut up unless you can prove we are wrong" (nevermind that there is nothing to be proved, since most of their points are just opinions). -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature