| |||||||||||||
the term "retroactive relicensing"the term "retroactive relicensing"Posted Jan 23, 2012 1:25 UTC (Mon) by jrn (subscriber, #64214)In reply to: Please don't spread FUD... by landley Parent article: Google's disappearing Android GPL compliance opportunity
Who said you were spreading FUD? khim's corrections were in response to a comment by dlang.
However, your characterization _still_ strikes me as strange. Usually when I see the words "retroactively relicense the old tarball", I would assume that that means there was old code under one license and they have revoked the license, replacing it with a new one. You can be unhappy with the license chosen for binutils 2.17a and the choice to put that symlink there (and I would agree with you) but calling it fraud as dlang did or retroactive relicensing as you are seems disingenuous.
(Log in to post comments)
Please take a note of the following... Posted Jan 23, 2012 2:11 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You can be unhappy with the license chosen for binutils 2.17a and the choice to put that symlink there (and I would agree with you) As I've already explained: initially file was just removed, symlink was added later to [hopefully] help users with automatic scripts. I'm not sure it was good idea - but it was quite explicitly not produced by RMS, FSF or "binutils guys"... As I've said already: stop spreading FUD. I may not agree with everything FSF does (and the fact that they released these files under GPLv3 looks strange to me, too), but I at least tend to check facts before trying to tell tales about FSF conspiracies.
|
|||||||||||||