[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Jeff Squyres <jsquyres@lsc.nd.edu>] 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      <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu>
Debian/GNU Linux <wolfie@debian.org> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"    <wolfie@lpsg.org>   http://www.lpsg.org

Reply to: