On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:30 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
> I was lazy and didn't include a link, but I was really referencing - if > not exactly quoting - your own words from March: > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/004014.html > > It seems your mind has changed now that we are discussing a different > license? > No, I am afraid that you are wildly mis-interpreting what I wrote. The context of the discussion was whether we should consider licenses which are a modification of FSF licenses, or whether we should defer to FSF in considering these. Patrick Schleizer: > Generally a good idea but in this specific case, this might be beyond the wishes expressed by FSF? Bruce Perens: We do have to protect their right to attribution, even if we remove trademarks. The problem is that we can't give FSF a *veto power* on license review, nobody would consider *that *fair. So, we have to take lesser measures, like protecting their trademarks. And we have to do that for everyone equally. So, I am having trouble seeing how declining to give FSF a unilateral veto power on license-review, something we have never even thought of doing with anyone, places us in an adversary relationship with FSF. Thanks Bruce
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
