On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:25:34 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote: [...] > > if you've got a font that is in wide use and regarded as stable, > > changing the kerning is a design decision and should in fact change > > the name under which the font is available to the user and to > > documents. > > This exact argument can be made to apply to programs. We as > distributors (or our users as users) should be able to make the > determination whether it's appropriate to break compatibility to fix > the bug, or keep compatibility and live with the bug. A license really > has no business forcing technical decisions like that on us or our > users. > > We've allowed a very narrow compromise to require that the name of the > work itself (or its version) change, but that's it; a requirement that > other parts of the work change beyond its name goes beyond DFSG §4. Exactly! Agreed entirely. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpiRqoVvfQQc.pgp
Description: PGP signature