Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty > explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a > license non-DFSG-free. Unless someone goes through the hassle of > devising a way to change the DFSG...
Sure. Branden was, I think, merely saying that he thinks the decision was a mistake, not that we can now ignore it. I'm not sure I think it was a mistake though; I don't see it as all that objectionable.
