| 1 |
Le Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:53:46 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> écrivait : |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:33:13 +0100 Philippe Coulonges |
| 5 |
> <cphil@×××××.net> wrote: |
| 6 |
> | > | Guys, you DO NOT want to open the can of worms that is grouping |
| 7 |
> | > | licenses into categories. I made the mistake of creating the |
| 8 |
> | > | "as-is" license and I'm sorry for it. |
| 9 |
> | > |
| 10 |
> | > No, that can be left for the FSF and OSI. |
| 11 |
> | |
| 12 |
> | OK. I understand that. |
| 13 |
> | But we can still group FSF and OSI accepted licenses to help users |
| 14 |
> | that want pure GNU/Gentoo, no ? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Sure. Wasn't I the first person to suggest that, several thousand |
| 17 |
> posts ago? :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sorry. |
| 20 |
But you know, when a troll award winner like this thread happens, noone |
| 21 |
can read all the posts and remember everything everyone says. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Any concrete, raisonnable and constructed proposal is certainly three |
| 24 |
drinks behind now. |
| 25 |
I checked the licences to try getting back to concrete and divert the |
| 26 |
subject from the "Users want only free / Users don't care about |
| 27 |
licenses" scheme. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
To follow on the theme, I would say that since we have hundreds of |
| 30 |
licences of which only about 50 have been checked by the FSF and/or OSI, |
| 31 |
we could ask the FSF to pronounce on the others. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Alternative could be to shoot dead anybody trying to publish yet |
| 34 |
another OSS license ;-) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives