Approval request - Poetic License

Karsten M. Self kmself at
Thu Nov 8 06:29:12 UTC 2001

on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 07:52:04PM -0800, email at (email at wrote:
> On Wed, 07 November 2001, David Johnson wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 November 2001 05:00 pm, Chris Brien wrote:
> > > I sent this to license-approval at,
> > Although I may agree with some of your sentiments, a software
> > "license" is not the place to air them. 
> well, on that point, he is simply following a bad precedence.
> ;/
> Mr. van der Boom just queried about getting a version of the GPL
> without the rant, er, preamble attached, and with a paragraph deleted
> from the appendix that gives one last poke in the eye to proprietary
> developers.

There's a crucial distinction:  the GPL questions _practice_ and
utilizes _law_.  The submitted "Poetic License" questions law.  What it
utilizes, I'm not sure.  As such, I don't see it as a license, in fact,
it says as much.


Karsten M. Self <kmself at>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!
Geek for Hire           
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list