| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 08:52:10PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything |
| 4 |
> >> into "FSF-APPROVED"? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Yeah, I think that's reasonable. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I've just learned that GLEP 23 explicitly requires GPL-COMPATIBLE to |
| 9 |
> be present. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The GLEP would also require a NON-MUST-HAVE-READ group: |
| 12 |
> "NON-MUST-HAVE-READ licenses are those that don't require manual |
| 13 |
> acceptance for to be considered legally binding." Whatever that means. |
| 14 |
Some licenses (eg some in @EULA) require explicit acceptance of the |
| 15 |
license. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
@NON-MUST-HAVE-READ was supposed to be all licenses that you agree to |
| 18 |
merely by using any material under them. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
| 23 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 24 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives