Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Marco d'Itri writes:
> vorlon@debian.org wrote:
>
>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
>>licenses, however.
> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse
you of wanting to put non-free things into main). The DFSG are one
metric for license goodness. I think they are meant to separate what
are (mostly) intuitively good licenses from what are (mostly)
intuitively bad licenses, calling the former "free" and the latter
"non-free". How many licenses can you think of that are widely
considered DFSG-free but bad? I can only think of the Artistic
License, which is "bad" mostly because of vagueness, and it has been
revised by its author.
Michael Poole
Reply to: