Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote: > > Maybe, but good/poor comments are a bit more judgement than > > the DLSes give too. They say "this licence is foo" rather than > > giving recommendations for what you think is the most common > > want. > I'm sorry but I cannot make a sense of this [...]
Basically, if you want to advise copyright holders what licence to use, the present DLS documents are not much help. > > I agree, which is part of the reason why I said "similar packages" > > to hopefully make it easy to combine within a field. > Well, but what if similar packages are under a problematic license > (maybe not enough to be make the software non-free, but still annoying: > think of the 4-clause-BSD, if you want to focus on a concrete example)? If the licence is that bad, I would hope that the maintainer notes any animal sacrifices in the copyright file *and* that the majority of similar packages are not nutty. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
