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

Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)



On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 1. requiring that modified source be distributed as patches+original
> > (so, no public CVS, since cvs co gives fully-merged source).  
> We have a general consensus that this was a hoop we should not have
> permitted. 

No, we do not.

It's something that upstream authors should not require, but it does not
make something non-free. Bad != Non-free.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgprViDGjew8t.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: