Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Matthew Garrett:
> 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
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html
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
until obsoleted.
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?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: