On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:09:10PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:12:27AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > > There are both edge cases and fundamental disagreements that Branden very > > likely already has on his list, but seeing discussion may help him > > determine how to prioritize them, and certainly helps me to understand all > > the considerations that go into the next proposal. > > OK, I just don't like to see too many posts from /me on lists... Actually, you guys are starting to lose me with all the hypotheticals, so if you have any questions on point, you'd better ask them so I don't forget about the issues you raise. I will not draft a license that conflicts with the DFSG as I understand it. To do so would be dumb. I will also endeavor not to draft a license that conflicts with the DFSG as I would rewrite it. I however cannot promise that I won't do so because A) I haven't rewritten the DFSG to satisfy my personal ideas yet, so I don't know exactly what it would say; and B) there's no guarantee that my personal ideal DFSG would be accepted by the project, due to matters either of procedure[1] or principle. The DSFG we have today is the most important criterion for the DFCL to satisfy. [1] See debian-private for why the Project Secretary is deferring Constitutional Amendments for the time being. -- G. Branden Robinson | There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux | Lincoln today -- just a rumor that branden@debian.org | is put about by people who have http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | nowhere to live. -- G. L. Murfin
Attachment:
pgpM5zRtaRGeJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature