On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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.
I doubt the accuracy of that, but regardless, if there are, it's just because we haven't got around to them yet. > 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. By your logic, current practice is not to fix RC bugs, because there exist RC bugs which have not been fixed. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
