Le vendredi 05 octobre 2007 à 01:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > > > The whole license is CPL-based. > > > > Indeed. I guess that settles the issue. > > I have to disagree.
I couldn't expect any different reaction from you. > Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a detailed license analysis, > at present. But you yourself, as well as others on this list, found > some issues in the license. And I explicitly used the word "borderline". > Nonetheless, as soon as a similar license which seems to be accepted > is pointed out, you seem to be ready to close your eyes and pretend > the issues have vanished, magically. I don't think the issues have vanished, and I would certainly not use such a license myself. Still, the contributor indemnification clause is very bad in spirit, but, as I already explained, I don't think it has practical consequences, so we can pragmatically accept it. The patent retaliation clause has more real-world implications, but frankly I couldn't care less of some random company being bitten for using software patents. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
