Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:

> Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> > There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
>> > release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
>> > bitten by this before.  So why not move everything to non-free which
>> > is not under a "GPL, version 2 only" license?
>
>> That the GNU FDL is not DFSG-free tells us nothing about the
>> DFSG-freeness of *any* other license.
>
> Um, the GFDL was not a part of that debate at all. Brian was
> responding to some opinions I had about Apache's apparent intent to
> knowingly include patent-encumbered algorithms in their product.  He
> was saying, by a fairly usual reductio-ad-absurdum argument, that he
> did not find my reasoning convincing. Even though I still think my
> point was valind, I don't find his counterargument "hysterically
> absurd".

I try to be only hysterical *or* absurd, and never both at once.

Fire hose.

My original intent was to express this opinion: that software should
not be put into main or non-free based on its potential future
freeness, but on its freeness today.  If that state changes, it can be
moved -- though this is unlikely, since most free licenses cannot
suddenly become non-free licenses (patent grants justify that "most").

Aardvark.

By retaining absurdity, I hope to avoid hysterics.

v.42bis High-Security Streaming Pants.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu
                       http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/