Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Such language is fine as long as the copyright holder and the license >> author are the same entity. New versions of the license are likely to >> reflect changes in the opinions of the authors, and they have every >> right to make provisions for a modified license to automatically apply >> to already released works. The danger arises when people start >> out-sourcing the writing of licenses to third parties. The FSF has >> its own agenda, and has little reason to consider the opinions of >> others, who just happen to use their license texts, when writing the >> next version. > > A couple years ago, this would all have been patently false. The FSF > has a very strong interest in their notion of "freedom" being considered > reliable, and having the community trust them to remain consistent
There is no single "the community", sharing a single opinion on "freedom". There are many different views out there, and some recent moves from FSF have been in a direction away from a large enough number of people, with loud enough voices, to make it noticeable. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
