Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Glenn Maynard writes:
> I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
> want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
> requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless requested.
> I do think that, for specific interpretations of existing DFSG clauses,
> having them in a secondary document is better than amending the
> (currently short and to-the-point) DFSG.
Irony is in fact NOT dead, no matter what anyone may say about it.
You see, to determine if something is "DFSG-free", you cannot simply
read the DFSG.
With this fact in mind, and with a straight face, can you reiterate
your assertion that the DFSG is "to-the-point"? It seems more
accurate to say that the DFSG is besides the point.
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.