On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:51:34PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then
> > need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender
> > of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright
> > interest, as in the Busybox mess 
> You appear to be mixing up either SFLC or SFC with FSF.

You are correct.  I'm aware of the error, and still make it sometimes.  I
apologize.  As I recall it was the SFLC, though I am not 100% certain.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to