Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Let's compare that with some license: GPL expects a binary software > releaser to keep the source available for three years. This is generaly > accepted as a period which is long enough to make the source not > interesting for anyone. Should we force that to be changed to 4 weeks > (rather than 36 months) in GPLv3? This would also apply to the lots of > software saying "GPL v2 or any later version" in the source because it > was the default header template. > Great deal, isn't?
I can't make any sense in this comparison. The fact that some changes are bad does not mean that all changes are bad. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]