Marcus Harnisch wrote:
Andreas Roehler <andreas.roehler(a)online.de> writes:
> Really? I.e. they wrote: but _not_ any later version of GPL?
The Linux kernel being the most prominent example, I reckon.
You are right. However a sad example.
Suppose its infected by famous `copyleft' rapist-towards-freedom story.
Coercing freedom is a strange idea, thats a profound mistake.
Can't assume RMS got it by himself.
> Does it make sense?
Sure. If you are happy with the current version of a license and don't
trust that "any later" version might properly represent your own
That not logical for me, as the file published with
an older license will not vanish with a newer.
Lets avoid that nightmare of negotiations. Lets accept Emacs as a
present and lets send presents back. Otherwise I see rather a new hell
than freedom coming.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list