On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: >>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>>> However I >>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for >>>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version >>>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice: >>>> >>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html >>> >>> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code >>> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for >>> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm >>> this. >> >> I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the >> gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of >> the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the >> Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice" > > Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But > I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. > S. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
