[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?



On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:
> >> > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is.
> >> 
> >> Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation.  I can easily
> >> find any number of people that disagree with RMS about this, so
> >> who's right?
> >
> > If you or other people claim that linking is not a case of derivation,
> > they can advance arguments about it. Your arguments will be taken even
> > more seriously by volunteering a reasonable chunk of change to defend
> > such an argument in a court of law. I think 1-5M US$ ought to suffice.
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot.  Whoever has more money is right.

In cases of ambiguity, correct. Which is why "ambiguous" means "no" as
far as Debian is concerned.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: