Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote: > > In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free. > [snipped: although there are exceptions...] > I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should find > a way to keep track of past license analyses.
Actually, maybe licences are free or non-free, but who cares? We don't have a free licence definition or debian free licence guidelines. It's not a relevant question. There seem to be an awful lot of exceptions, anyway. I agree that we should find a way to keep track of past package analyses. The "DLS" documents are dressed up as rulings with justifications, rather than a chronicle of sightings of that licence. Now maybe that's an interesting thing to summarise. > [3] the GFDL comes to mind: just think about reviewing again all related > threads without having any sort of summary or position statement > (fortunately we have some!) Here's an interesting point - where summaries are required, they have happened outside the "DLS" series. The two most commonly referred to (FDL and CC 2.0) are not DLS. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
