On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: >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?
About the time that Debian was still part of the FSF... >Edmund > -- For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken John Galt ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
