Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:53:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:23:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I think your observation provides more support for striking DFSG#10 as > > such from the document. > > Or for adding a constraint that there be no explicit statement

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:10:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on > > > action taken not involving the covered work? > > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Br

Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative

> > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with > > the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free. > > Which was the reason that clause was placed there in the first place. On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:56:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I'm