On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>> However I >>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for >>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version >>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice: >>> >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html >> >> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code >> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for >> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm >> this. > > I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the > gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of > the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the > Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice"
Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. S. >
