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


Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:

> I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty
> explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a
> license non-DFSG-free. Unless someone goes through the hassle of
> devising a way to change the DFSG...

Sure.  Branden was, I think, merely saying that he thinks the decision
was a mistake, not that we can now ignore it.

I'm not sure I think it was a mistake though; I don't see it as all
that objectionable.

Reply to: