Re: [prePROPOSAL] DFSG (draft 7)
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 06:57:05PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I don't find anything here that isn't covered in the current
> DFSG. The wording is much more confusing on issues that should be
> cut and dried.
Yep, this is too much document to worry about. I don't think I can
use it - I just am not interested in getting in arguments about
"paragraph 3, subsection 2 blah blha blha", that could be interpreted
two ways, or whatnot. If I don't understand software, I'll go RTFM,
but I will not GTFLS (go to fucking law school) just to participate in
Debian. I think if we (err, you) vote to change it, that I will
continue to use the old definition, with whatever consequences that
that entails for me and my packages.
David N. Welton | Fortune rota volvitur - descendo minoratus
email@example.com | alter in altum tollitur - nimis exaltatus
http://www.efn.org/~davidw | rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!
www.debian.org - www.prosa.it | nam sub axe legimus - Hecubam reginam