Thomas Lord wrote: > The V2-only wiki status is unfortunate and I'd add it to the > list of what I think are Canonical's gratuitous > `screw you' behavior visited upon the GNU Arch project.
You would be mistaken. The GPLv2 policy of the wiki was set by James Blackwell, well before he ever heard of Canonical. We argued the licensing on IRC and the discussion ended as he said essentially "I'm hosting this wiki on my machine out my pocket money, I get to choose the license". The initial wiki announcement: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2004-01/msg00256.html At this point, there was no Canonical (by this name or any other). The message where James reaffirmed GPLv2-only licensing: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2004-03/msg00327.html James Blackwell was initially contacted by Canonical in August 2004. QED, Canonical had exactly zero influence on this licensing policy. People who have been around and paying attention long enough know that you had interpersonal issues with James, predating his involvement with Canonical by a long stretch. Attributing these issues to the company is amalgamation. -- -- ddaa
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
