| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
License is DFSG-incompatibleLicense is DFSG-incompatiblePosted Nov 9, 2006 21:25 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: License is DFSG-incompatible by branden Parent article: Sparse gets a maintainer
Why are you assuming that Linus choose this license specifically because of this clause?
(Log in to post comments)
License is DFSG-incompatible Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:39 UTC (Fri) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] Why are you assuming that Linus didn't read/understand the license or didn't care about this clause?
I think the question is a valid one: if Linus read the license carefully (and seriously, does anyone think he didn't?), why was he OK with this if he's not OK with similar provisions concerning DRM instead of patents in the GPLv3 drafts, for example?
I'm actually pretty sure he's got a good answer (he *is* Linus, after all, and experience shows that he pretty much always has a good reason for what he does), but I'm rather curious what it could be.
|
|
||||||||||||