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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 04:55:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Even after a diff the consequences were not obvious. That's the
> > WHOLE point. Please read the thread. The point is that the
> > consequences were not obvious.
> 	I doubt that the consequences were obvious to anyone but aj.

I've asked for an apology once already for your rude and unjustified
remarks, Manoj, that you've declined to offer. I'm disappointed that
you seem to be continuing in that vein, as the above remark is also both
obviously untrue and insulting, and as such also requires an apology.

I see no reason why I should be expected to provide evidence to justify
not being treated with gratuitous disrespect by the project secretary, but
in order to avoid misunderstanding I'll offer the following. You can see:


for a discussion on debian-vote in which this exact issue was discussed
in a fair degree of depth. In particular, you can see either Don Armstrong's

] > At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
] > licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
] > Andrew's proposal does nothing to affect this at all.
] I gather you're discussing the non-free proposal, as the SC
] modification does clear up the former half of the above debate.

or the discussion I had with Raul Miller on the same list:


addressing this particular issue.


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

Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law
http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: