Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing
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
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? firstname.lastname@example.org, that's who!