Re: dpkg/license related proposal
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: dpkg/license related proposal
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Amy Fong)
- Date: 1 Nov 1999 23:34:23 -0500
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19991101222028.C18149@molehole>
In article <19991101222028.C18149@molehole>,
Steve Greenland <email@example.com> wrote:
>So because a few companies have screwed up (and almost always
>admitted/corrected), you want to inflict this on all our users, 99% of
>whom won't be affected? The screwups have happened (I think) because
>the laywers got called in at the last minute and stuffed the standard
>corporate license on the package, without talking to anyone. Big uproar,
>public embarassment, licenses get fixed, and the world moves on. A few
>more of these, and the companies will get their act together before they
>release ('cause the developers will know that they need to bring up the
>license issue early so they don't look like idiots).
What if it's not just going to be a few companies? What if other
companies think that they can ask people to change licenses to suit
their needs? What sort of a system are we going to end up with when
corporate entities can simply walk in and make people modify licenses?
Admittedly making users read all licenses is probably an overkill but
ideally, something should be done to prevent more company "screw ups".