Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
- From: Ben Finney <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:56:59 +1000
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20130825082100.GA6817@BlackPatchPanel.com> <email@example.com> <20130825093538.GA7315@BlackPatchPanel.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130825133615.GA4097@leliel> <email@example.com> <20130826211557.GA1033@helios.localdomain> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130827213724.GA21000@virgil.dodds.net> <20130827213724.GA21000@virgil.dodds.net> <[🔎] E1VGFWR-0004Bpemail@example.com>
Steve McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Really, by now the regulars here all know what you think about various
> licenses and, frankly, we don't care to hear about it any more.
Is this forum only for the regulars, then? Much of the value would, IMO,
be for newcomers raising an issue here even if regulars have gone over
it many times.
I think making it clear to newcomers that there is not consensus about
the DFSG-free status of some set of licenses, in the context of a query
about exactly that, is relevant each time.
How is it that repeating one opinion is worthless, but repeating a
different one is not? Remember, as acknowledged in this latest thread,
we have many decisions from the FTP masters without any explanation
published. Repeating their decisions here doesn't move the discussion
\ “Earth gets its price for what Earth gives us.” —James Russell |
`\ Lowell |