On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 04:30:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > However, unwilling to make apache non-free, we'll probably have to live with > > it. > > Alternatively, we rewrite the DFSG2 so we can grandfather it. > > This is right if the only merit to arguments against tossing the > advertising clause is that we'll discriminate against packages whose > authors haven't had sufficient time to consider the new DFSG. "The BSD advertising clause is not free software. Apache? That's just too important, we had to make an exception for it." NO. I consider the timeout on the BSD advertising clause to be essentially license terrorism. Change your license or we'll start calling your program non-free! The idea is wrong, the suggested workarounds are even MORE wrong, and the whole idea of calling what everyone else in the world considers Free Software--and even we did for the past 5 years or so--but it no longer is because we decided we didn't LIKE part of the license because it's slightly inconvenient and won't let us relicense it as GPL... It's being done for the wrong reasons in the wrong manner and with almost certainly disasterous results. > [And, seeing how long it takes Debian to change something major I can > certainly see how it could take years to make a major change.] This change would be one more for fanaticism and we'd lose a lot of users, developers, and ISVs in the process. Is the BSD advertising clause or even the more inconvenient patch clause worth that? -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Attachment:
pgpQOUkPExfRD.pgp
Description: PGP signature