"Constantine A. Murenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In this whole discussion, I really like the following quote from a > response to Luis' email regarding SFLC involvement...
At first blush it looks to me like the SFLC at least must have emphasized that the originators' wishes are to be respected. By volume at least most of the public discussion has been from and between people who have not themselves contributed code. It remains to be seen if the (apparently SFLC recommended) commit referenced upthread is actually acceptable to the originators involved. > Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "if you have to rely on SFLC for licensing decisions... Ouch." > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/222 > > Yes. "Ouch." At least some degree of agreement between the two camps then. :) I've kept repeating over the years that license issues revolve for a large part around having a measure of basic respect for other people, specifically those who make useful code for others to use. Episodes like these are tiring at least (distracting from other important task for me at least) and to some extent painful, but if this one leads to an SFLC statement saying "respecting the wishes of those who use other licenses than GPL is essential" or words to that effect, it may actually end up doing some good for all of us. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
