On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 09:04:48PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote: > >I don't see that a vote is either necessary or relevant here. > > It doesn't harm in anyway, and it will help me :-) This is only voluntary.
If it's a waste of time, or comes to a false conclusion (as impromptu, ad hoc votes are liable to do), it will confuse and muddy the discussion. (Not that this is necessarily what will happen; I'm just pointing out that it's not a foregone conclusion that a vote can have no negative effects.) There also seems to be a consensus that this interpretation of the GPL is not a valid one (eg. not a reasonable interpretation of the license itself). Interpreting the GPL in strange, logically unreasonable ways weakens the GPL, and weakening the GPL weakens the community as a whole. I suggest that it is irresponsible to aid its dissemination, and that the package should be removed completely. Also--a more concrete question--is it safe to distribute (even in non-free) programs which have upstream authors asserting broken interpretations of their license terms? (There's not yet a consensus to these questions, which is why I'm asking them. The only solid consensus right now was expressed in Branden's bug report: that it can't stay in main.) -- Glenn Maynard
