Matthew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 12:34:53AM -0400, Chaskiel Grundman wrote:
>> My objection to doing this is that while it will help some users, it >> also in sense legitimizes the whole license checking scheme, and I'd >> rather we didn't help do that. > The license-checking scheme is *there*, and it's as legitimate as it's > ever going to get. I think having a open source / free software, > non-GPL, clearly non-derived work correctly labelled actually does more > to help than hurt, because currently, pretty much all > widely-talked-about examples are actually proprietary code. Yeah, someone just filed a Debian bug over this because they were confused (thinking that tainted == non-free), and having the IBM Public License string in there would probably have resolved their confusion. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
