Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:23:04AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > 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.
Yes, that's what I said. You've only replied to the one mail I sent you
a CC on, and I was unable to find any replies from you to people who
didn't CC you, which led me to the hypothesis that you're only reading CC's.
You havn't said whether you actually want CC's or not, however. I'll
experiment by not CC'ing this message to you. :)
> 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.
The DFSG is to-the-point. It isn't heavily laden with the fine details
of application; rather, it expresses Debian's principles of software