Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 19-Jan-99 Anthony Towns wrote:
> "Agreeing" with the DFSG in a fairly important part of that -- our major
> aim is to produce a free system, and if we can't even agree on what that
> means then we're not going to get *anywhere*.
>
Not necessarily. Agreeing to "abide by" the DFSG is more important than
agreeing with the "DFSG". Many people don't "agree with" the patch clause but
they accept it as part of the DFSG and abide by it because Debian as a whole
has accepted it into the current DFSG.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <>< *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
* Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 *
* <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
* KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- *
* Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ *
* <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*
=========================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNqQzxrbps1lIfUYBAQHu+gP/SnBoR3jkOLzYwihUxqwkc024mWRRYg50
IBxDOKdvTlZrp5i9YgpR9fRdbbWuI+yJpeLlDYQRNTqO8sR5aYvJATMHgIF2GURy
nqGaIZlNp6qIIKURV2umHJ8niylRR2z7ZT+7RhRMJoYE45TGiuV2ObYIspqrv3gn
5gUo4CEEgmo=
=Ht9g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: