Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A >> hyopthetical license that said "This code is under a BSD-style license. >> If you downloaded it via FTP, remove this license and attach the GNU GPL >> version 2 or higher" probably /ought/ to be free, since there's never a >> situation where it's not at least the GPL. But DFSG 3 appears to prevent >> it. I don't think that's what it was intended to do, but the only person >> who knows is Bruce. > > But with that license, we can just jump through the hoops and > distribute it under the GPL, which is free. We can't take advantage > of wacky privileges the author gives, but that's OK.
Sigh. Yes. Postulate a similar license whose hoops we can't jump through. Should it be free? If not, why not? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
