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

Re: {debian-legal} Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.

I'm looking for compromise positions.  Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.

> Message-ID: <20011213191536.B20985@azure.humbug.org.au>
> Message-ID: <874rmvtqyu.fsf@becket.becket.net>
> Message-ID: <20011213225605.B17786@azure.humbug.org.au>

Quote the parts you think I skipped over too hastily, please;
referring to the whole message doesn't help, because I don't know
which pieces you think I should reply to.

> Look, there is nothing to discuss here. Licenses are special. They're not
> documentation, or manifestos. Their exemption is universally supported
> and the reasons behind that don't generalise. Everyone else has moved on
> from this already.

But there is more than licenses at issue here.

There are also required advertising sentencies, no-warraty
ascriptions, lists of contributors, "you must tell people that they
can get the original version of this package at URL foo", etc.


Reply to: