[Adding cc to debian-legal; removing cc to kde-licensing@kde.org] On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 09:39:34PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: > If we reject the Artistic License, we must reject the BSD and MIT licenses > as well. Why does so much GNU software seem like it was coded by talented > children when compared to the BSD code? No need to be petty. The Artistic License is vague and confusing - "You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of the Package" is not DFSG free, except for the top that says that that line is meaningless. The license is filled with this, and this is what RMS is complaining about, and many others have complained about before and since. OTOH, the BSD and MIT licenses are totally clear - probably about the most clear of the free-software licenses. The GNU project would not have so much code centered around X if it considered the MIT license to be non-free. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Attachment:
pgpAeWDXXEGLc.pgp
Description: PGP signature