On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote: >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
I have yet to see a legal document that isn't subject to differing interpretations. In fact, if licenses were cut and dried, there would be no reason for -legal, would there? >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>). If Artistic's that bloody well non-free, file a bug against the SC. It's explicitly listed in the examples of free licenses. -- Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
