On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes ("Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0"):
> > I am seeking help on bug #689919.
>
> I disagree with all of your objections to #689919.Could you please write a (short, but reasoned) point-by-point rebuttal of my license analysis? Just saying that you disagree does not explain much. And it does not convince me of the (supposed) wrongness of my conclusions. > > > The only one of those objections that has any substance is the > complaint about the `reasonable efforts ... obtain assent' clause. > However, the licence author has publicly clarified that Debian's > behaviour is well within the intent of the licence. I think that > interpretation is sufficient also to safegaurd our users and > downstreams. Walter [1] has already explained why Larry Rosen's "clarification" does not sound very convincing. I share his concerns. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/11/msg00003.html -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpyLzCiikOSe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
