Re: New license for UW-IMAP
Branden and I sort of agree <HOLD IT, armageddon's not nigh--I said "sort
of"!>. He wants to put the NPL/MPL in the category of non-free, I'd
prefer to put the UW license in free. Either way, the basis is the
same: consistency. If they have similar clauses, and the clause in
question is the deciding factor between free/non-free, then they should
fall on the same side of the question. Logistically, I'm thinking
that just following the MPL/NPL precedent might be the easier solution--no
MPL/NPL headhunt in main, and IMAP goes quietly into main, but it's pretty
much a given that I have little say in the final outcome (I have a lot TO
say, but it'll get it's usual precedence :)
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
<schnip>
> >
> > To me, this looks like a fair summary of the UW licence too. The NPL is
> > a pain in many ways, and it's certainly GPL-incompatible, but
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html acknowledges it as a
> > free software licence. Thus, simply allowing a privileged party to steal
> > your changes and make them proprietary is not sufficient to render a
> > licence non-DFSG-free.
>
> Maybe it should be. Last time I researched the MPL/NPL issue, I thought
> the NPL was non-free, and the MPL (barely) free. Maybe I misremember.
--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: