Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
- To: Joel Klecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
- From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:37:04 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19991213013704.A583@priv3.onet.pl>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; from email@example.com on Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:50:59AM -0800
- References: <XFMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.3.96.991207114221.18032Jemail@example.com> <19991207113922.A6505@debian.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:50:59AM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote:
> No it's not, it's because binaries made from modified source are not
> >It might just be simpler for everybody to talk to UW about it. Life would
> >be much easier if they just BSD'd it or put it under Artistic (yuk) or
> If UW *wanted* a free license, they would have kept the license they *had*
> years ago which was free. Instead they changed it to the evil non-free
> license *and* legally threatened anyone who tried to fork from the last
> free pine. Does this sound like an organization that gives a damn about
> free software to you?
What was its primary licence ?
What kind of free licence make such situations possible ???
(for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change
his mind and take away your freedom)