On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If > > anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and > > useless, it's here. > > Please note that is not a consensus here.
Actually, it was consensus here when the X-Oz license was examined back in February. Branden Robinson[0] declared the clause in question non-free, and the final summary posted by Simon Law[1] also referred to the clause as problematic. Ben Reser raised objections to the formal summary[2], to which there was no reply. Since I can't find another summary, the consensus does seem to have been that the clause was non-free. I stopped paying attention to that thread because I thought it was a foregone conclusion that X-Oz was non-free (or at least GPL-incompatible, making it useless) and because there was way too much noise about the license at the time for me to follow. I suspect other people who might have otherwise contributed did the same. Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus (and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00162.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00310.html -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
