On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:41:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences > > with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free > > or non-free software without too much effort. > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than > licenses with "options" (which essentially makes them multiple licenses), > and other than questionable "interpretations", when has this actually > happened?
The Artistic license would be the classical case. Pine if you want an example of where we got screwed by it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
