On 01/12/07 09:31, Francesco Poli wrote: > The issue here is not whether the NC license element is /useful/.
That makes a lot of sense now. I think maybe that's why we haven't been seeing eye to eye in this thread. Whether or not the NC license element is useful was the exact issue I was trying to put forward :) So maybe I see we might agree then on that: The NC license element might be useful, but the point is that it doesn't pass the DFSG. > It's whether it meets the DFSG. > > I am pretty confident that it does *not* meet the DFSG, whatever work it > is applied to. It definitely forbids selling the work (fails DFSG#1) > and discriminates against a field of endeavor (fails DFSG#6). OK, I'm almost in agreement here with you. I think here our difference of opinion might be based on our philosophy of how the DFSG is to be interpreted and used to promote positive strategies for the free software movement. Cheers, Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
