Glenn L McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think if a licence has been accepted as complying with the Open Source > Definition, then the burden of proof should be on on the people who want > it excluded from debian. [...]
You think debian should be bound by a buggy derived project's decisions? For examples of how they differ, the OSI famously claims to have "no position" on some non-copyright matters and they foolishly approve copyright licences rather than pieces of software. Of course, OSI's opinion is worth reading, but I think it is seldom made public, so they're not really very helpful. All we usually see is the licensor's lawyer's opinion and *of course* they are going to claim it's good. > After listening to what you say, i conclude that wether COV is DFSG free > is very open to interpretation, i expected a more concrete reason. Your reasoning process is flawed, then. I'm trying to figure out the *effect* of these clauses (and now whether a US licensor specifying them has any effect) and whether that breaks any DFSG. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
