Scripsit Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... and grant > Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and > distribute the modifications or work in its products.
> DFSG-free? Yes, I think so. A lot of people will not *like* it, for political reasons, but it does not affect the *practical* side of what you can to with free software (fix bugs, change functionality, share fixes and changes with with friends and customers) that the DFSG is meant to protect. > > Perhaps we need to add some notes to the DFSG explaining why clauses like > > the above are unacceptable. > I agree. Yes, or at least put some reference explanations somewhere on the web. I've been wanting to write such notes for quite a time but have not had time to do very much. At the moment there's just a set of headlines a http://www.diku.dk/~makholm/whatnot.html. Anyone who wants to contribute well-written explanations (covering the connection to the language in the DFSG as well as why each clause is bad in the real world), please do. -- Henning Makholm "The compile-time type checker for this language has proved to be a valuable filter which traps a significant proportion of programming errors."
