Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0

To: Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 22:48:02 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] 21594.43298.33905.706844@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20141105223535.d0322a97eba9a304573e52c6@paranoici.org>
References: <[🔎] 20141103223443.fc0605b0c5c5e97e82c5a0e0@paranoici.org> <[🔎] 21592.62414.535800.205695@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] 20141105223535.d0322a97eba9a304573e52c6@paranoici.org>

Francesco Poli writes ("Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0"):
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I disagree with all of your objections to #689919.
> 
> Could you please write a (short, but reasoned) point-by-point rebuttal
> of my license analysis?

I'm afraid I don't have time.

> Walter [1] has already explained why Larry Rosen's "clarification" does not
> sound very convincing. I share his concerns.

I think this problem is overblown.

Ian.

Reply to:

References:
- Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
  - From: Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>
- Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
  - From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
  - From: Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
Next by Date: Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
Previous by thread: Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
Next by thread: Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread