Marco d'Itri writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in >>licenses, however. > Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are > plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse you of wanting to put non-free things into main). The DFSG are one metric for license goodness. I think they are meant to separate what are (mostly) intuitively good licenses from what are (mostly) intuitively bad licenses, calling the former "free" and the latter "non-free". How many licenses can you think of that are widely considered DFSG-free but bad? I can only think of the Artistic License, which is "bad" mostly because of vagueness, and it has been revised by its author. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
