Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's been several days with no activity in this thread. > > Can someone please summarize it? I realize the original specific > instance motivating this discussion has been resolved (at least it > appears that way), but I still think it's worthwhile for us to document > why we find the OSL 2.0 DFSG-nonfree.
If no one else gets to it, I can do it later this week. > Even leaving aside the termination-upon-patent-enforcement clause. It should probably at least be referred to in any summary, since it is a rather important part of the discussion. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
