[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions
From: |
James Blackwell |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:28:32 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:30:33PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "James" == James Blackwell <address@hidden> writes:
>
> James> Yes, software can have bugs, and licenses can have bugs
> James> too. This draft has at least three significant bugs and two
> James> dozen minor ones. Thats ok though, because this is not a
> James> license -- its a first draft.
>
> That's not OK in software, and I doubt it's any more OK in law. Every
> draft should be treated as though it were going to be used by real
> people.
Are you suggesting that the GPLv3 drafts should worked on in secret?
--
James Blackwell's home : http://jblack.linuxguru.net
Gnupg 06357400 F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/01/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, Andrew Suffield, 2006/01/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, James Blackwell, 2006/01/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/01/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions,
James Blackwell <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/01/21
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, James Blackwell, 2006/01/19