<quote who="Glenn Maynard" date="Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:25AM -0500"> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have > > mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type > > clause. > > The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A > non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to > use it. I never suggested that this is the case. I suggested that we should perhaps think a bit harder before we declare software (or some subset of software) under the most popular free software license in existance non-free than we do when we're only talking about some license that almost nobody uses. The stakes are higher. Our level of critical reflection should be too. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.cc/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature