Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 +0000 Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 +0000 Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to > 
licence
changes.
Can you give a reference for that,
smalleiffel, now smarteiffel, was an example.  It went into non-free
while RMS negotiated with its authors until it became the GNU Eiffel
compiler (and is now in main).
If RMS negotiated it becoming GNU Eiffel, I doubt it was "the act of 
putting a package into non-free has, in and of itself" did much to 
make the change. Probably less than normal, even. I think human 
dialogue has to be given nearly all the credit for licence changes.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]