Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that > each user pay the copyright holder for use. [...]
We must be somehow miscommunicating. I was just saying that that any line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that OSI cheerleads for the GPL is plainly, egregiously wrong, as even a perfunctory examination of its activities and public presence will confirm. One is tempted to conclude that a person making that argument -- unless you know him to be above that, as we do with you -- is posting flamebait. > Semantically clean? Since you ask, no. There were unstated questionable assumptions big enough to hurl a book on dual-licensing through. But that was not really my point. -- Cheers, "He who hesitates is frost." Rick Moen -- Innuit proverb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
