> > Given that you and all others who have weighed in on this issue agree
> > that the license should be fixed, I invite the PEAR Group to now take
> > the initiative to address this issue in the manner that they find most
> > appropriate. :-)
>
> We are working on this.
In an effort to ensure th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
>>>licenses, however.
>> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
>> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
>Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some
>>>remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat,
>>>volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are
>>>those DFSG-free requirements?
>> At least, these are obvious li
3 matches
Mail list logo
