On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 05:05:04 -0400 Richard wrote: > I don't know what this license says, but this "precedent" argument is > not the right way to think about these issues. If a decision is > clearly right, we don't need to cite a precedent for it,
this post shows the dubious section of the license, and its similarity with the analogous license section of the OFL license https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2023-06/msg00056.html the complete license is in this post https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2023-04/msg00015.html On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 05:05:04 -0400 Richard wrote: > If we see a need to reconsider a decision, we should reconsider > thoughtfully based on what we know and understand. > > Let's hope our old decisions were mostly wise and that few need > reconsideration. i dont know if the previous decision needs reconsidering - you are the one who suggested that; and presumably you are the one who approved the license originally - i was not around then - i dont know where that discussion took place or who was involved if the previous decision was wise, then this one ('bass') probably should be acceptable; because the dubious section of the license is the same trivial requirement maybe it would be best to make a decision about this one in isolation (that was the original purpose of this thread), then revisit the OFL license, if this one ('bass') is not acceptable
