[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:41:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences
> > with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free
> > or non-free software without too much effort.
> I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even
> the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception.  Other than
> licenses with "options" (which essentially makes them multiple licenses),
> and other than questionable "interpretations", when has this actually
> happened?

The Artistic license would be the classical case. Pine if you want an
example of where we got screwed by it.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: