Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Jan 24, 2008 12:23 AM, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the
> > licence, but it's not non-free.
>
> I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of "retain
> copyright" is not all-inclusive.
Well, as ever in these cases, clarification from the copyright holder
would be the best way to be sure of the position. But the more I think
about it, the more I think "retain copyright" means what it says -
i.e., keep something you already have, not obtain something you didn't
previously have.
This does illustrate yet again one easily-overlooked problem with
licence proliferation and "ad hoc" licensing terms for free software -
namely, that a lot of these "non-mainstream" terms are very poorly
drafted.
John
(TINLA)
Reply to: