Re: LCC and blobs
- To: Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: LCC and blobs
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Date: 01 Jan 2005 21:24:41 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87652g4d46.fsf@becket.becket.net>
- In-reply-to: <E1CjKgO-0000tk-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- References: <20041218141019.GA6622@wonderland.linux.it> <87wtvfx6xs.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <20041219104858.GA4002@wonderland.linux.it> <87llbuxtd6.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <20041220114923.GA6377@wonderland.linux.it> <87oegox1nt.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <20041220192342.GA26399@wonderland.linux.it> <87brcke4fb.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <41CC35AA.7040809@derobert.net> <87mzw2ypoe.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <20041228155841.GC15093@wonderland.linux.it> <20041228155841.GC15093@wonderland.linux.it> <878y7ixt4u.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <E1CjKgO-0000tk-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> The parsimonious explanation is that the issue wasn't thought about in
> that much detail when the social contract was written. The archives tend
> to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
> a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
> to do here is to decide what we want the SC to say and then change it so
> that it matches that desire.
We already did that.
Reply to: