On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:33:59PM -0700, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > [...] Earlier Bradley Kuhn had indicated that this would be covered > > in the updated FAQ, but I don't really see it there. I sent him a > > separate message asking him to update it. > > Joe Buck wrote: > > > [...] Since the FSF is the copyright owner, even if your reading is > > held by someone to be correct, then the FSF's FAQ would count as an > > additional permission. [...] > > > Is anyone else uncomfortable that an important license is to > require clarification by a separately updated, possibly > contradictory FAQ?
Not as uncomfortable as I'd be with several more months of delay and the FSF not letting us integrate plugins. Dealing with legalities really sucks. In any case, I don't see a contradiction here, just clarification in unclear language. It would have been better to do in the license itself, but we'd only have a contradiction if the license clearly stated X and the FAQ clearly stated !X.
