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

Re: Summaries

Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe, but good/poor comments are a bit more judgement than
> > the DLSes give too. They say "this licence is foo" rather than
> > giving recommendations for what you think is the most common
> > want.
> I'm sorry but I cannot make a sense of this [...]

Basically, if you want to advise copyright holders what licence
to use, the present DLS documents are not much help.

> > I agree, which is part of the reason why I said "similar packages"
> > to hopefully make it easy to combine within a field.
> Well, but what if similar packages are under a problematic license
> (maybe not enough to be make the software non-free, but still annoying:
> think of the 4-clause-BSD, if you want to focus on a concrete example)?

If the licence is that bad, I would hope that the maintainer
notes any animal sacrifices in the copyright file *and* that
the majority of similar packages are not nutty.

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.

Reply to: