Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free. >> Your argument appears to be that we should consider those licenses >> non-free because the words can be interpreted in a non-free manner. > > Whenever such licenses appear, we either get them fixed or explicitly > clarified by the author. That is what we are trying to do here, > despite the best efforts of some people to obstruct the process. No we don't. There's huge chunks of X under licenses like that without us having obtained any clarification. We assume that they're free unless the copyright holder claims otherwise. You might like that to be changed, but what you're claiming is simply untrue - current practice is not to read licenses in the worst possible light. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
