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

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

mdpoole@troilus.org wrote:

>>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
>>>licenses, however.
>> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
>> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
>Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse
>you of wanting to put non-free things into main).  The DFSG are one
>metric for license goodness.  I think they are meant to separate what
Only in your mind. The DFSG is debian's metric for *freedom*.

>are (mostly) intuitively good licenses from what are (mostly)
>intuitively bad licenses, calling the former "free" and the latter
>"non-free".  How many licenses can you think of that are widely
>considered DFSG-free but bad?  I can only think of the Artistic
TeX-like patch-only licenses are the most classical example.
And I consider advertisement clauses a very bad idea too.


Reply to: