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


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: pgpOXLXSXOJ1L.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: