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

Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3



On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:16:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I don't have any issues with what you've said, but I still don't have
> > a fully formed opinion on the whole issue.
> Is it just a matter of thinking it through, or is there some issue I
> have left insufficiently addressed?

I'm still not clear on whether the GNU Manifesto [0] has a place in
main, and, if it does, what that place should be. I'm not sure where the
line should be drawn, except that licenses should be okay, and that it
shouldn't be allowed for important technical things.

Cheers,
aj

[0] And the Debian Official Logo, the social contract, the Debian
    manifesto, and a bunch of other things that don't have clearly
    free licenses, but also don't *really* need them.

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

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
    can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
		-- Mike Hoye,
		      see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt

Attachment: pgpNjjDK51_JP.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: