Hi Tobias, Thank you for the clarification.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:29, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> wrote: > > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道: > > zimoun 写道: > >> Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor > >> case > >> is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. > > > > No, it's a very real legal issue. :-( > > I should clarify: when the FSF calls the Artistic 1.0 licence > ‘vague’, that's not an aesthetic criticism. > > It means that the licence is broken and fails to do what it claims > to do: give you the licence (=freedom) to do something that would > not otherwise be allowed by copyright law. It means that you > can't prove, in court, that the licence says what you thought it > said. It's not merely ugly, it's defective and potentially > dangerous. I agree. It is what I tried to express in my other email. You explained here better than I did elsewhere. :-) > This always happens when programmers think they can write their > own licence. It starts with a punny name (‘artistic licence’, > ‘WTFPL’, ha ha -_-) and the result is a useless buggy mess. I am on the same wavelength. All the best, simon