Re: {debian-legal} Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011213191536.B20985@azure.humbug.org.au>
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 874rmvtqyu.fsf@becket.becket.net>
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011213225605.B17786@azure.humbug.org.au>
Quote the parts you think I skipped over too hastily, please;
referring to the whole message doesn't help, because I don't know
which pieces you think I should reply to.
> Look, there is nothing to discuss here. Licenses are special. They're not
> documentation, or manifestos. Their exemption is universally supported
> and the reasons behind that don't generalise. Everyone else has moved on
> from this already.
But there is more than licenses at issue here.
There are also required advertising sentencies, no-warraty
ascriptions, lists of contributors, "you must tell people that they
can get the original version of this package at URL foo", etc.
Thomas
Reply to: