On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear > > that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to clean > > it up. It's neither fair nor correct to say that nothing has changed. > > It's still non-free for the same reasons, so nothing relevant has changed.
You mean that you still believe it's non-free because nothing relevant to your reasons has changed, and you're pretending that other perspectives don't exist. Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new and I've never seen a consensus on the issue. (This wasn't settled very much the last time this issue came up, because the over-broadness of the original clause was clearly non-free to most people, so there was no need to decide the general case.) -- Glenn Maynard
