Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th May 2007 17:22 UTC, submitted by FreeRhino
Thread beginning with comment 243905
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
BS. If they are creating a license that is to be used for community development, then they damn well better listen to the community.
But why is Eben trying to shift focus away from the important parts of the license? If the other things mattered so much we would be arguing about them.
Edited 2007-05-29 19:54
There was a rather large controversy of Microsoft restricting the us of Vista under virtual machines. It shouldn't be surprising that open source developers and users find the introduction of a new license quite controversial since the freedom of the licenses was a large reason to switch to the software.






Member since:
2005-07-06
I find it wildly ironic that a license designed to limit exploitation and maximize transparency in volunteer application development is the center of so much controversy. I don't think anybody puts up this much fuss when Microsoft, Adobe or Apple adjust their EULAs, despite their already draconian nature.
I, for one, appreciate that the FSF even bothers to listen to all the various opinions in this debate. They are under no obligation to give equal time to all the folks complaining, but I find it a very compelling example of the collaborative mindset of the FOSS community at large that they bother to do so.