On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the > copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free. > Debian deferred to the copyright holder's interpretation in that case.
That doesn't really sound like clearly and unambiguously free, to me. It sounds as if at least some people in debian were convinced of the copyright holder's interpetation. Also, if we were to follow that precedent here -- if Debian defers to Joerg's interpretation -- we would need to move every GPLed package out of main. Alternatively, if we decide that the text of the license in question is irrelevant and it's only the stated wishes of the copyright holder that matters, we should not consider "arbitrary termination" clauses as being any different from any other free software license. -- Raul
