This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote: >So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses >that can be used, and will be considered non-free. > >I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of >the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary >license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are >inforced by the author...
So you have never checked your packages to make sure that the code within is all above board and licensed under the license it says it is? When a particular instance of a license can be considered free by our standards, why should we place a blanket rejection on all possible permutations of that license? We, as developers, should be able to recognise the difference between a document with and without invariant sections, and identify the documentation as non-free or free respectively under our current set of guidelines. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg The Tao that is seen Is not the true Tao - until You bring fresh toner. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
