On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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've not and I won't. Please chill. > > I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. That's not denying my assertion. I also encourage people to read FSF Board member Bradley Kuhn's clarifications: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807 S. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
