Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:06:00 +0100

Rick Moen wrote:
> I contest your premise, and point you to Catherine and Eric Raymond's
> explanation about why this widely held view is incorrect:
> http://catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#id2852366
> 
bash-3.2$ nslookup www.catb.org
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached

whois indicates that it is a personal web site (organisation: private).

If you are saying that most contributions are not copyrightable, I would 
agree.  If  you are saying that the licence for copyrightable 
contributions could be changed unilaterally, as a potential contributor 
I would really hope that was not the case.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.