> > Previously Peter Makholm wrote: > > > I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
On 14 May 2002, Henning Makholm wrote: > The reasoning is that it would be absurd to call license A free and > license B non-free if every recipient has at least as much freedom > with license B as he has with license A. Quite. As long as derived works can be distributed under pure GPL, I can't imagine any claim that it's non-free. That said, if the cups developers don't like the fact that the GPL doesn't allow linking to non-free components, they should change the license rather than making a specific exception. LGPL would be my first suggestion to them. Not required for DFSG freedom, just required for philosophical consistency. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
