On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > How about: "There is a special exception for the texts of the
> > > licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;"
> >
> > It's not just enough for that;
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is.
>
> This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that
> the license texts w
* Ian Jackson:
> I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
> For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
> troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
> is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have
> worked
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > How about: "There is a special exception for the texts of the
> > licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;"
>
> It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
> being used
4 matches
Mail list logo
