On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:20:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett 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. That's not a "different" position, it's an irrelevant compatible one. It might as well say "I like bees". All of these are *discarded* by the law of limiting factors. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature