Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >>On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: >> >>>On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: >>> >>>>I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear >>>>that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to clean >>>>it up. It's neither fair nor correct to say that nothing has changed. >>> >>>It's still non-free for the same reasons, so nothing relevant has changed. >> >>You mean that you still believe it's non-free because nothing relevant >>to your reasons has changed, and you're pretending that other perspectives >>don't exist. > > Irrelevant by the law of limiting factors. But I haven't seen anybody > seriously advance any other positions. Alright, now you have: I think that terminating a license because of unrelated lawsuits is unacceptable, but that terminating a license because you sue claim the work infringes one of your patents is perfectly acceptable. By suing, you are trying to take away other people's rights over the software, so you should lose yours as well. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature