Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Really? Wow. That's insane. > >Could you please explain "that's insane"? It seems simple and noncontroversial >that a free license can be non-free if certain key permissions are removed. > >(Without GPL3a, if I make any distribution of GPL code, I must archive that >source for at least three years, which seems obviously non-free.)
It's a pain in the ass, but why should having responsibilities attached to your use of freedoms be non-free? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
