Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my understanding, > it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the > Artistic license is just as bad. Maybe, at the very least, someone will > propose a GR to change it to "3-clause BSD" and "clarified Artistic", but > I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific licenses it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free but non-optimal), or because it results in us considering the Artistic and 4-clause BSD licenses free? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
