On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up. > > We can't ship without RPC in glibc > > Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe. We are already doing that. Continuing to do so will not intensify that problem (although if the consensus is that the code is non-free, that should be fixed; but if we do so, we should do it properly); however, replacing the code at this moment in time *will* intensify another problem for our users. One should not try to fix one problem at the cost of creating (or intensifying) another. There would be a difference if we would be *avoiding* one problem, but that's not what's happening here. > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at > > least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after > > section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). > > You've tried to make that argument before; go dig in the archives for > the reasons why it's wrong. Actually, I haven't done such a thing. You're probably mixing me up with someone else. Also, without a date, keyword, or thread subject, that's pretty hard to find. And even if I had enough information to find it, I'm not going to waste *my* time digging the archives to understand *your* point; so unless you come up with an URL to the specific post that explains your point, I'm just going to assume you've made this up, and will feel free to ignore it. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Attachment:
pgp283rzMfZjS.pgp
Description: PGP signature