On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:39:31PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote: > > I must admit that I lack the legal expertise to claim that the AFL 2.1 > > conforms to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, since it talks about > > needlessly complicated things like patents and jurisdictions. > > Both the Open Source Initiative and the Free Software Foundation have > analyzed the AFL and declared it conformant to their definitions of "open > source" and "free". Yuck. They really aren't trying very hard when analysing licenses these days if crap like this gets through. I get the feeling that you could manage to get the "pet a cat" license past them. It sounds like upstream has gone completely insane. Not a promising sign. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature