Re: license questions.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 08:05:52PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:15:07PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified)
> > > Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an
> > > example of a DFSG-free licence.
> >
> > I wish we could back away from that. RMS is dead right on that point.
>
> I agree, and note that so much code Artistic licensed code is really
> dual-licensed under the GPL that cleaning up our stance on the Artistic
> license would not be the disaster it might at first appear.
AOL. Are changes to the DFSG text still filed under "permanently mired
in complicated voting system corner cases", or can we actually *do*
something about it?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
Reply to: