Re: [Jeff Squyres <email@example.com>] New LAM/MPI license
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:24:45AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:07:18AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
> The Artistic License is widely considered problematic, on account of
> it's vagueness. The FSF doesn't consider it a free license. I'm not
> sure if Debian has an offical stance on it.
> Almost every piece of software that uses the Artistic License also
> allows the GPL as an alternative license (this is the way Perl
> works). This avoids the problems raised the by the Artistic License.
> You should let the upstream authors know about these problems. If
> they really want people to be able to do all the things they mention
> without restriction, they should consider the X license.
doh, you're right, wasn't thinking (i'll just blame that on that
it's 4:20 and i just wokeup) *whistle*.
Brian Russo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Debian/GNU Linux <email@example.com> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.lpsg.org