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
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
> > 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
3 matches
Mail list logo