Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
> looks astonishingly bad?
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing submit@bugs to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)
Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing
position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of
even though saying "we used to say that we wouldn't compete
with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will"
looks astonishingly bad.
I don't think looking bad is a good reason not to
re-evaluate a position, but let's honour past agreements
Personally, I think some patch clauses are free enough to
allow the four freedoms, although most are a nuisance
in practice. I'm happy to discuss that: why not?
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct