2009/2/22 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement
with RMS that the
projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think
making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be
done about it now. The WMF shouldn't go back on its word.
I would be interested to hear what your source was for such
a deal between RMS and the WMF.
Is this a written agreement? Why isn't it public? Why haven't the reasons
for the agreement been made public?
I don't know if it's written down or not, but that email makes it
fairly public. From what I can tell, it was just a compromise made
during the negotiations. The reasons are fairly obvious - the FSF
wants people to still be using their license and the WMF felt the need
to compromise, so agreed to it.