Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:15:07PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified) > > Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an > > example of a DFSG-free licence. > > I wish we could back away from that. RMS is dead right on that point.
I agree, and note that so much code Artistic licensed code is really dual-licensed under the GPL that cleaning up our stance on the Artistic license would not be the disaster it might at first appear. -- see shy jo
pgpMbWue8U1qU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
