| |||||||||||||
Please take a note of the following...Please take a note of the following...Posted Jan 23, 2012 2:11 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: the term "retroactive relicensing" by jrn Parent article: Google's disappearing Android GPL compliance opportunity
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.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||