I reply to this separately, because it's quite off-topic and unrelated to the problem at hand. I don't want to add noise to the wnpp log.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:37:22AM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > THAT is why it is downright > offensive to change the licence on minor modifications to someone else's > file. It is not. The author chose a license that explicitly allows this, in section 12, because they didn't want to prevent the license from being upgraded by third parties. This is precisely what is happening. > The > legal result may not matter when mixing licences. But the Free Software > world places the SPIRIT of the grant much higher than the letter The spirit of LGPL (or GPL for that matter) never intended to allow use of patents as a means to impose a tax on software covered by the license, and Novell is doing exactly that. Looks like fair play to me. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org