[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: QPL in /usr/share/comon-licences (was: Re: wnpp: ITP: apc --

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:08:06AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Of course, none of this seems necessary, and RMS appears to have taken
> > the "diff" example to heart
> RMS's opinion is only relevant to packages on which he holds the copyright.

He's, uh, the one that started claiming the entire GPL has to be
distributed with everything. Go read the bug log. If his opinion didn't
matter, we wouldn't have bothered even thinking about this.

Do you have an actual point, or did you just want to disagree?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpkFG8TUEgbl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: