Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
> and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
> expressed that. Not everybody --- the camp is clearly divided.
I havn't seen dissention on this issue. Some people have said that they
don't like it (many DD's don't like #4; that's why it's a a compromise),
and others (eg. Thomas and Branden) have pointed out that renaming may
not necessarily accomplish what you want.
The rest of this seems, to me, like you're trying to use #4 in ways it
wasn't intended to be used. I'll leave replies to people more experienced
with Latex and the DFSG than myself.
> I can accept the argument: that you want it excluded and intend to change the
> clause in this way, but this is a different argument then (and I don't think
> that this is actually the consensus within Debian right now).
The DFSG is a set of guidelines, not a legal document; it has room for
interpretation. Debian doesn't change the DFSG to indicate the details
of every debian-legal decision that required interpretation. Yes, this
means there's some ambiguity if all a person has for reference is the
DFSG text. (That's one reason these things are discussed publically.)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com