Bradley M Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know if the Preamble I wrote if perfect, because I got very
> little feedback on it, and all the RFCs this group submitted. Those
> last two weeks before RFC's were due, the traffic on this list was
> basically dead, except for me posting revi
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
>> proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
> MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
> about it in other plac
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Satisfying Stillman might be good enough for the FSF and ODSN and GNU,
> but that's quite insubstantial and superficial.
(It's Stallman; I wouldn't say anything, but I've seen that twice now.)
Note that Stallman is already satisfied with the license on
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
> > about it in other places is that the GPL is both a copyright license and
> > a contr
bkuhn wrote:
> > I don't know if the Preamble I wrote if perfect, because I got very
> > little feedback on it, and all the RFCs this group submitted. Those
> > last two weeks before RFC's were due, the traffic on this list was
> > basically dead, except for me posting revisions of RFCs. I hope
