On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes: [...] > > Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? > > I did. And how did they explain the difference in their conclusions?!? > > >> This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? > > > > This makes this license acceptable for the *FSF*, which is a different > > organization. > > As far as I can see, the main argument against this license here on > debian-legal was that the FSF (or RMS) had considered such licenses to > be invalid. I don't think this is an accurate summary of the debian-legal discussion on the topic. The main argument was that the license (GPLv2 + restrictions) is self-contradictory and thus invalid. This conclusion was *confirmed* by RMS, who basically brought the same argument. However, I think the argument holds even if RMS and/or the FSF change(s) his/their mind(s) afterwards, unless he/they bring(s) new data to support his/their new opposite conclusion... > However, this seems not to be the case now, no matter > whether the FSF changed their mind or not. I would like to hear them explain *why* the two cases (which seem basically identical to me) get two opposite conclusions from them. Could they elaborate? Or else, if they changed their minds about the teTeX case, I would like to hear them explain *why* they did. I'm really puzzled. Anyway, my disclaimers still hold: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpyXhdWoFWFp.pgp
Description: PGP signature