Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing

[John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>>
>> I doubt it.  RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL.
>
>The real reason is that it's unclear and subject to differing
>interpretations. If possible, we should either get a quick note from the

I have yet to see a legal document that isn't subject to differing
interpretations.  In fact, if licenses were cut and dried, there would be
no reason for -legal, would there?

>author saying what we want to do would be OK for anyone to do, or get them
>to re-release under the clarified artistic license. (See
><http://www.appwatch.com/license/ncftp-3.0.2.txt>).

If Artistic's that bloody well non-free, file a bug against the SC.  It's
explicitly listed in the examples of free licenses.

-- 
Galt's sci-fi paradox:  Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!