"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <quote who=3D\"Glenn Maynard\" date=3D\"Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:25AM > -0500\"> > > The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A > > non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to > > use it. > > I never suggested that this is the case. I suggested that we should > perhaps think a bit harder before we declare software (or some subset > of software) under the most popular free software license in existance > non-free than we do when we're only talking about some license that > almost nobody uses.
I don't think one can honestly call GPLv3 "the most popular free software licence in existance" because it's not in existance yet and the current draft and BROKEN drafting process are getting a lot of criticism. (The process should be changed to be * open/accessible to all, but especially software creators * transparent and public with full audit trails * more international ) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]