>A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. it's not pedantry unless it's a minor detail, and given that the entire license behind llama has n

>A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. it's not pedantry unless it's a minor detail, and given that the entire license behind llama has next to nothing to do with the open source model or existing open source licensing, this isn't a minor detail. the court-room doesn't care if 'few people care'. it's obvious to anyone that has been to a CS convention in the past 20 years that the whole open-source thing from large corporations is used to leverage good-will to recruit useful labor and to collect community 'altruism-points' so that they can make shadier decisions later on and hopefully trap a captive audience, not to follow the ethical ideals of open-source but to enhance their bottom-line. 'Trojan-horse open-source'.