On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 10:21:43PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 01-Mar-99, 14:15 (CST), Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 01:07:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > I'm not sure what "without obligation" here means. Certainly I'm not > > > obligated to use software anyway. > > > > hmm, "without cost or other obligation to the authors of the software." > > perhaps? > > How about "...obligation to the copyright holders of the software" (I'm > sure that could be phrased better). My point is that the author may > not actually be the entity that owns the copyright. For example, your > hypothetical use of the software I write at work in no way obligates > you to *me* :-), but I don't my employeer would be too happy unless you > wrote a fairly substantial check. > There is a secondary attempt to keep the document easy to read. This is also supposed to be a Guidelines which means someone can not use this document to hold us hostage. If person A writes Foobar and person B takes the copyright and insists that every person shout out the window that they're using foobar when they do... that package would STILL not go into main because Debian won't let it into main... under this very point... regardless of the "exact wording" of our DFSG. I had just finished changing most, if not all, "copyright holders" to "authors" to ease reading. If, everyone thinks it's more important to have "copyright holders" in, however, I'll put them back. - Darren
Attachment:
pgpTDp9wXh9vU.pgp
Description: PGP signature