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

Re: (False) License Statements [Re: Bug#180798: ITP: multisync -- A program to syncronize PIM data]

[NB: I am subscribed to debian-legal. Please follow debian list policy
and refrain from double mailing me.]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The word "obfuscating" was to be taken somewhat lightly. I don't
> think that replaing the author's name with "NN" and the program's
> name with "<The Program>" would inhibit the discussion notheworthily.

Well, you'll note that in the message the program's name is not
mentioned. Only the Subject: mentions it.

> Please note that I'm not trying to criticise you personally for not
> having obfuscated (or whatever) your example statement, even though
> it happened to be your message that prompted me to raise the issue.

Understood. I think it's more important that when these sorts of
statements get made that they are self contained and declare clearly
that this is a suggestion for a license in a particular case or
whatever the author deems appropriate.

Where possible, they should be generalized. However, the fear of being
quoted out of context shouldn't prohibit anyone from writing concrete,
non-circumscribed statements when it makes sense.

Don Armstrong

N: It's a ploy.
B: What?
N: This drug money funds terror, it's a ploy.
B: Ploy?
N: A manipulation. I mean why should I believe that?"
B: Because it's a fact."
N: Fact?"
B: F, A, C, T... fact"
N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. 
   That's your argument?
B: It IS true.
-- "Ploy" http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG


Attachment: pgp2VzTebdsTT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: