Subject: Re: Choardic Commons
From: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:23:53 -0700

On 6/26/02 2:56 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:

> I can't agree with Tim's "license is a smokescreen" formulation.[1]
> Licensing really does indicate _and implement_ intent, and if the
> "source available" software is just a tease with the intent to lock in
> the unwary, it's antithetical to free software.

Sorry.  "Smokescreen" was a loaded word.  I meant "red herring."  I wasn't
suggesting that it was a deliberate obfuscation, just that the discussion of
licenses sometimes seems to overshadow other important issues--some of which
may be even more important.

I agree that licenses are a very important statement of intent and agreement
between parties, and I didn't mean to imply that discussion of them was not
significant.

-- 
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
1-707-829-0515 http://www.oreilly.com, http://tim.oreilly.com