On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:32:45PM -0300, Andr??s wrote:
> We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open
> Source Initiative that "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" is not a
> free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*.
>
> This paragraph says it all:
>
> And come on it says "certain responsibilities". Good god. Are you
> people dumb to accept such a term in a legal document? It is like
> "your house mortgage can be considered invalid in certain situations
> and then we own your house".
>
> A BSD future for that compiler is not guaranteed, but I think a free
> software future is. I don't think Lucent would step back. Maybe they
> will use a copyleft license, but I think that would be much better
> than now.
the plan9 compiler had been released under free license.
now try to compile it under unix.
then try to make it generate correct code under unix.
after that compile fucking openbsd with it.
the last (but not least) make an openbsd release with it.
you (and your kids) will go greyhair before you get halfway thru it.
so can you people fucking shuddup and do smth useful now plz?
cu
--
paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
