[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: flowc license

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:15:23AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> > Both. They *are* lousy licenses to endorse, and some people *do* try
> > to use it as a trump card to defeat rational analysis of these
> > licenses. Realistically, even if everybody at the time thought they
> > were free according to the DFSG, they might have been *wrong*. Eris
> > knows it happens often enough; accurate license analysis takes
> > discussion on the order of *years*. It only takes one small bug to
> > make a license non-free, and the law is unforgiving of bugs.
> Oh, come off it. Everyone knew what the bugs with 4-clause BSD were in
> '97, and I find it hard to believe that people thought the Artistic
> license was anything other than a confusing mess even then.

Some people don't know what's wrong with them *now*. It seems
disingenuous to assume that people were less stupid in history.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: