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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
