John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >Well, I don't think it's a free license for similar reasons as RMS. > >Mostly because it's very vauge in places, and references things that > >it really shouldn't in others. Examples: > > I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL. Look at how many > unequivocally free licenses fall under his definition of non-free. Hell > the most free license in existence, the original BSD "do whatever you > want, just don't bother us or plagiarize" license was considered by RMS to > be non-free.
When? Where? Edmund
