Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
Walter Landry writes ("Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0"):
> This is the case we have today with svn_load_dirs. Are you saying
> that we should not distribute svn_load_dirs until we get this
> clarification?
I think it would be better to clarify this, but that I don't think the
existing situation puts us or our downstreams at significant risk.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21594.14376.855777.179...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 + 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/msg3.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
Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
Francesco Poli writes ("Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0"):
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 + Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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?
I'm afraid I don't have time.
> Walter [1] has already explained why Larry Rosen's "clarification" does not
> sound very convincing. I share his concerns.
I think this problem is overblown.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21594.43298.33905.706...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
