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

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



On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 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.

If you don't want it, how does it make sense as a "compromise"? 

> > 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;

I, uh, did.

> 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.

None of those are at issue, as far as I've seen.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
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: pgprGaJ7irZ9E.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: