On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > One thing that came up when I was emailing Mark was that I didn't > have (or couldn't find) a stock document I could point to about why > "Licensed under the same terms as foo" is bad. That's a shame, > because I know I've seen the issue come up here and on other lists > before.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/06/msg01166.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/02/msg00078.html http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=232693 [...] The basic jist is that the license is ill-specified; you're basically setting yourself up for a lawyer bomb. I don't think we should remove things from the archive based on this license, but anything new should be clarifying the terms of the license with their upstream. [As far as your text goes, it seems to contain a lot of hyperbole; merely pointing out the lack of specificity in the licencing and the issues that it causes, and more importantly, what packagers/upstream should do to fix the problem is good enough.] Don Armstrong -- There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved by brute strength and ignorance. -- William's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
