Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:14:43PM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote:
> [KSB3] <...snip...>
> >>[KSB2] Yes, as human readable source code - even if generated by a
> >>script from a text file - it should be DFSG free. But the devil's
> >>advocate argument is that even if it is human readable C code, since
> >>it is generated from a text file, is is not source code. But if
> >>that works for getting GT.M into the package, lets do it.
> >Ftpmaster is not a devil so we will not be confronted with these
> >arguments. So I'm in all favour of doing this.
>
> [KSB3] I realize in hindsight that I should be careful when using
> English idioms on an international mailing list. By "devil's
> advocate argument" I did not mean to imply that anyone is a devil.
> It means "opposing argument" or "counter argument".
I've perfectly got this (but clarification might not harm anyway).
I just tried to play with words.
> So, I was just
> trying to list both view points. My apologies if I offended anyone
> and I will try to be more careful in the future.
No offense taken, really.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: