Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free.
> [snipped: although there are exceptions...]
> I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should find
> a way to keep track of past license analyses.
Actually, maybe licences are free or non-free, but who cares? We
don't have a free licence definition or debian free licence
guidelines. It's not a relevant question.
There seem to be an awful lot of exceptions, anyway.
I agree that we should find a way to keep track of past package
analyses. The "DLS" documents are dressed up as rulings with
justifications, rather than a chronicle of sightings of that
licence. Now maybe that's an interesting thing to summarise.
>  the GFDL comes to mind: just think about reviewing again all related
> threads without having any sort of summary or position statement
> (fortunately we have some!)
Here's an interesting point - where summaries are required, they
have happened outside the "DLS" series. The two most commonly
referred to (FDL and CC 2.0) are not DLS.