f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> [...] Earlier Bradley Kuhn had indicated that this would be covered >> in the updated FAQ, but I don't really see it there. I sent him a >> separate message asking him to update it. > > Joe Buck wrote: > >> [...] Since the FSF is the copyright owner, even if your reading is >> held by someone to be correct, then the FSF's FAQ would count as an >> additional permission. [...] > > > Is anyone else uncomfortable that an important license is to > require clarification by a separately updated, possibly > contradictory FAQ?
While that can be troubling, I think it's OK in this specific case. I personally never read the license the way Joern did. So I think it really is a matter of clarification, rather than changing terms. Ian
