Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > That's mostly because -legal won't even say that the GPLv2 is DFSG-free, > except in so far as it's explicitly listed as being DFSG-free.
Got a reference for that? GPLv2 is a very frequently-suggested DFSG-free licences, has been the subject of repeated analysis, http://lists.debian.org/search.html is in the FAQ, http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq the web page http://www.uk.debian.org/legal/licenses/ and probably other places. I don't think it's particularly interesting that periodically posters pop up on debian-legal thinking they've spotted a new flaw in GPLv2. I expect that [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets a number of those too - debian's difference is its openness. I think almost all of them end up agreeing once it's explained clearly. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
