Re: glibc2.1 confusion ( was: slink is gone, goals for potato? )
Ron writes:
> Whether this is significant to the glibc2.1 issue, I'm not in a position
> to say.. It's a grey area to be watched, but probably not a flagrant
> breach of DFSG as far as we are concerned.
The statement you quoted is not only DFSG compliant, it is essentially a
restatement of the essence of the GPL. I wonder why they don't just GPL
the code? It would do exactly what they say they want. Perhaps they are
unaware that the GPL would not bar them from selling proprietary licenses?
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Reply to: