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

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Damn typos.

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:53:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I agree, and it was never my contention that nothing that got in under
> the ~32 thousand byte limit couldn't be nasty.  Hence the provision for
> either the limit is too low or people are abusing it.  If we grant very
> few exceptions either way, then either the limit is exquisitely tuned
> (which I doubt), or people just aren't exercising judgement.
...or there are so few packages with invariant texts that aren't
copyright notices or license texts, that we're seldom called upon to
exercise judgement on this issue, numerical limit or not.

That's not a typo, it's an important qualification.  It may be that the
issue seldom comes up in practice, in which case my existing proposal
would be over-engineered but harmless.

> Agree.  RMS agreed that Debian should not be making special cases for
> the FSF, just as they do not for us.
> preganancy is nothing if not arbitrary.  Whether you think such a
> standard makes anyway or not depends a lot on your beliefs and I
> *really* don't want to go there.

G. Branden Robinson                |     If God had intended for man to go
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     about naked, we would have been
branden@debian.org                 |     born that way.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpyTP1UImd3x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: