[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH]: criteria C5
|
From: |
bill-auger |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH]: criteria C5 |
|
Date: |
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:34:45 -0400 |
On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:32:21 -0400 Richard wrote:
> The negation makes this harder to understand (for people not
> accustomed to set theory and complex grammar), so we should not
> make this change.
as i remember, this was proposed because people expressed a
confusion of its intention - it is presuming that the forge
recommends _any_ license at all - people thought that it implied
that the forge must recommend the GPL - the re-wording was
supposed to be a clarification, such as: "... IFF the forge
recommends any license ..."
the proposed B1.9 requires good licensing documentation - even
if that is accepted though, this criteria is at the 'C' level,
yet is essentially taking for granted that B1.9 is satisfied