Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
> > > it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that
> > > some software important to Debian would have been treated as
> > > non-free. I think it's also safe to say that we thought that allowing
> > > that software into Debian was a better idea than excluding it.
> > According to Branden, it was an attempt to get Qmail into Debian, and
> > that's treated as non-free anyway.
> I disagree:
> At the time the DFSG was being drafted, it wasn't clear how qmail
> would be distributed.
That doesn't seem to contradict Branden's post. Feel free to discuss
it with him, though; I wasn't around at the time.