On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:50:54AM +0000, James Troup wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes: > > > I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the > > original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would > > compromise with us regarding qmail and other software he distributes > > I don't recall this; do you have a message ID or some other reference > to this? From what I recall the source of contention was gnuplot and > a quick check of the private archives (1997/06) seems to confirm this. Thanks for the correction; I'll assume your representation is accurate, as I wasn't subscribed to -private at the time. Someone once characterized the patch clause as having to do with qmail to me, though. Oh well. I should be less gullible. ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson | A celibate clergy is an especially Debian GNU/Linux | good idea, because it tends to branden@debian.org | suppress any hereditary propensity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | toward fanaticism. -- Carl Sagan
Attachment:
pgpzSibGzq8bS.pgp
Description: PGP signature