Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning  found
questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the
Searching the list archive by that message-id brings no results, you
You seem to have made a decision that this licence is ambiguous
*before* asking the list. I think you have been wasting the list's
time. I am not surprised that you now try to declare discussion over
I'm not going to waste any more time reading this subthread; you're
on trolling by snipping my text with "[crap]".
[crap] is a fair description of the invention that you attempted to
attribute to me. I think you were far closer to trolldom with that
stunt and your I-will-not-ignore-DFSG-like-you-all-want trick.
If you don't want to spend
your time evaluating this license, please don't do so.
As you know, I have done so. In my opinion, the actual permission is
not troublesome, nor are the notices of copyright, although the
warning about download acceptance might be. It is necessary to
remember that more than one author may have copyright in a work.
You must mean something else by snapping than what I know as it, for
that was not it. No matter.
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/