On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote: > Strictly speaking, our concerns are only whether a license is > legimitate, and whether it's DFSG-free.
Well, when we see stuff like the cdrdao license, which appears to create a dual-licensed mess along the lines of my hypothetical, I'd have concerns about that license being legitimate. Since it really doesn't make any sense what so ever, I don't think the author intended to actually apply the GPL. > However, that someone would wwant to dual-license a work under the GPL > and something extremely unpalatable shouldn't really concern us. It should if the answer is "they didn't want it"; instead, they wanted something that sort of looks like the GPL, but isn't. > > Your example above is a poor one because licensors often offer some kind > of carrot to offset the stick, e.g., waiving the must-distribute-source > requirement of the GPL. Well, it quite resembles the cdrdao license, doesn't it? > > -- > G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of > Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein > http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
