On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:15:20AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:51:41AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > > If upstream supplies source in the upstream, as per Andrews definition, > > then I think that is OK. But if they don't, then that should not > > constitute violation of DFSG. > > > > We *need* a definition of "program" in the DFSG. This is the only way to > > fix the ambiguity. > > I think this is a reasonable approach, in principle, as long as the word > "program" is removed from DFSG#1, #4, #6, #7, #8 and #9--so that it's > only used in #2. (s/program/work/ the rest, perhaps.) Special-casing ELF files is nuts. Why the fuck try to dodge providing source? What is this supposed to accomplish? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature