Branden and I sort of agree <HOLD IT, armageddon's not nigh--I said "sort of"!>. He wants to put the NPL/MPL in the category of non-free, I'd prefer to put the UW license in free. Either way, the basis is the same: consistency. If they have similar clauses, and the clause in question is the deciding factor between free/non-free, then they should fall on the same side of the question. Logistically, I'm thinking that just following the MPL/NPL precedent might be the easier solution--no MPL/NPL headhunt in main, and IMAP goes quietly into main, but it's pretty much a given that I have little say in the final outcome (I have a lot TO say, but it'll get it's usual precedence :)
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: <schnip> > > > > To me, this looks like a fair summary of the UW licence too. The NPL is > > a pain in many ways, and it's certainly GPL-incompatible, but > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html acknowledges it as a > > free software licence. Thus, simply allowing a privileged party to steal > > your changes and make them proprietary is not sufficient to render a > > licence non-DFSG-free. > > Maybe it should be. Last time I researched the MPL/NPL issue, I thought > the NPL was non-free, and the MPL (barely) free. Maybe I misremember. -- Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
