On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 13:20, Glenn Maynard wrote: > It does seem to be in line with RMS's statement that for a program to be > GPL-compatible, you need to be able to release a modified version of it > under the GPL. This wouldn't allow that.
I see no reason why that wouldn't be possible under the DFCL (as expressed in Branden's previous discussions). Do you? > The idea that I might someday see code (or content) that is free, with > portions that become unfree on their own, is strange, at least, so > you'll have to excuse me if I have to wrestle with it for a while. :) We're still not talking about anything being "unfree" in any sense. If the DFCL meets its goals, then it will be DFSG-compliant, either on its own or in combination with a GPLed program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
