Re: PBS License
John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
> The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
> restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
> dishonest, it's stupid.
You are patently attempting to misread the license. But it can't hurt
to just ask the authors.
> Arguing that a license is vague enough to be non-free is impeding?
No, but raising specious arguments is impeding.
> Then you've been impeding Debian ever since you subscribed to this
> list (I believe the first argument you and I had on this list was
> you taking the position that the Artistic license was too vague to
> be DFSG free), and you haven't stopped yet.
I think you're incorrect. In any case, the Artistic license isn't the
point here; the issue is the PBS license. It would be impeding work
to start asking whether the X license is really free, or the GPL.
It's not even impeding work to ask if the PBS license is free. But it
is impeding work to raise specious claims about the X license.
Thomas
Reply to: