On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:17:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:15:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > You ground your argument on "second hand reports of clarifications" in > > the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish > > first-hand clarifications? > > Yes. If you're too lazy to be bothered doing that, don't expect anyone > else -- either the release manager nor the glibc maintainers -- to care > about your ravings. > > > The burden of proof is on those > > who claim it's been "clarified" to come up with evidence of such. > > No, the burden of proof is on those who advocate a change, and it's not > been met. Ah, so in general, when people find a flagrant DFSG violation in main, the best thing they can do is just leave it alone. Otherwise, it's a "change", and past inclusion is always sufficient present for future retention. Got it. -- G. Branden Robinson | If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux | pound of antipasto, would they branden@debian.org | cancel out, leaving him still http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hungry? -- Scott Adams
Attachment:
pgpTelmd0iIi3.pgp
Description: PGP signature