Spelling out the license - protesting too much

[Chipp Walters]

Richmond,

I agree with you.

Mathewson wrote:
> Framkly software should be either FREE (and any proprietary
> elements within FREE software items should be 'bound up' in
> such a way that to reverse engineer them would take such a
> long time that it would be counterproductive) or UNFREE (as
> in, totally bound up in legla clauses cooked up by highly
> paid lawyers).
> 
> FREE software shouldn't need any licenses - Creative
> Commons, GNU, Rampantly Oversexed Wrathog, or what ever.
> 
> FREE means FREE.
> 
> So those of us interested in producing FREE software should
> get on and produce it; and include a nice little READ ME
> document that says something rather like:
> 
> "This is FREE, do with it what you like"
> 
> and those of us who are interested in producing software
> for which they want money should get on and produce it; and
> include blatant signals that it is UNFREE.
> 
> Blast licences!