Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea

[MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>]

On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 +0000 Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 +0000 Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > > [...] As Craig said, the act of putting
> > > a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to > 
> > > licence
> > > changes.
> > Can you give a reference for that,
> smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example.  It went into non-free
> while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel
> compiler (and is now in main).

If RMS negotiated it becoming GNU Eiffel, I doubt it was "the act of 
putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself" did much to 
make the change. Probably less than normal, even. I think human 
dialogue has to be given nearly all the credit for licence changes.