Previously Daniel Quinlan wrote: > Yes, but we should not define an API for which there isn't any free > software. Could we please define free is DFSG (or OSD) compliant? > Requiring the use of a GPL library would mean that commercial vendors > wouldn't use that part of the standard, which defeats part of the > purpose of having a standard base system. The same reasoning prevents us from using motif with its current license. Wichert. -- _________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgpJ6SI3l3kRY.pgp
Description: PGP signature