Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)

To: Debian Developer's List <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
From: Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:53:56 -0800
Message-id: <[🔎] 19990120165356.D9372@kitenet.net>
Mail-followup-to: Debian Developer's List <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.SOL.3.96.990119222315.521A-100000@lindy.cs.wustl.edu>; from Ossama Othman on Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 10:35:55PM -0600
References: <19990119221753.A14823@neuromancer.hou.aspentech.com> <[🔎] Pine.SOL.3.96.990119222315.521A-100000@lindy.cs.wustl.edu>

I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It should
be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide by it in what
they produce for debian.

-- 
see shy jo

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
  - From: Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>
- Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
  - From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@golden-gryphon.com>

References:
- Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
  - From: Ossama Othman <othman@cs.wustl.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Bug#27050 (fdutils): A cause for security concern?
Next by Date: organizer wanted! (was: Debian booth at LinuxTag '99?)
Previous by thread: Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
Next by thread: Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread