On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL.
The real reason is that it's unclear and subject to differing interpretations. If possible, we should either get a quick note from the author saying what we want to do would be OK for anyone to do, or get them to re-release under the clarified artistic license. (See <http://www.appwatch.com/license/ncftp-3.0.2.txt>). > 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. > The original BSD license (with the obnoxious advertising clause) is listed under GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses at <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses>. Note that UCB has given everyone a permenant grant of permission to ignore and omit the advertising clause in software where they're the copyright holder. For those programs, the license is now both Free and GPL compatible. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
