[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in >>>licenses, however. >> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are >> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free. >Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse >you of wanting to put non-free things into main). The DFSG are one >metric for license goodness. I think they are meant to separate what Only in your mind. The DFSG is debian's metric for *freedom*.
>are (mostly) intuitively good licenses from what are (mostly) >intuitively bad licenses, calling the former "free" and the latter >"non-free". How many licenses can you think of that are widely >considered DFSG-free but bad? I can only think of the Artistic TeX-like patch-only licenses are the most classical example. And I consider advertisement clauses a very bad idea too. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
