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

Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:

>> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
>> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of
>> the wording.

> All I found was the thread starting at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200105/msg00178.html

> To me it seems to die out with no clear consensus.

To me it seems to end with consensus that it is non-free: in the tree
of the thread, all leaves say "non-free", except one saying "I think
barely free, on the verge of non-free, but still free, but if I'm the
only one thinking this, then I wont battle for my interpretation".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: