On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:11:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:49:27PM +0200, A Mennucc1 wrote: > > > > first of all, thanks a lot for the careful reading > > > > I will incorporate all change that you mention > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:03:56AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > > .... > > > ***** Could you rewrite this paragraph in a way that is less disparaging > > > of your fellow developers: > > > > ops > > > > sorry I didn't mean the following to be in any way disparaging > > > > > ``I personally want to trust that a piece of code stating "GPL" or > > > "LGPL" is indeed DFSG complaint; if mantainers were so paranoids as to > > It's not paranoia anyway. > > We start from a default position of trusting that upstream developers > comply with copyright law. > > The upstream developers for mplayer have, several times, stated that > mplayer was licensed entirely under the GPL, when it simply was not, > and they had clearly not even tried to check. > > It doesn't matter whether this was intentional or just inept - > continuing to trust their word on the matter would be foolish. And throw this one on top of it: consider what it would mean if SCO weren't lying through their teeth. Now consider it being some member of the MPAA instead of SCO. Note that this isn't random hypotheticals - given the scenario, this is a very real possibility. Which is why we can't afford to trust them. Licenses matter. Writing a program and not being careful with the copyrights and licensing is just like writing a program and not fixing the bugs. The end result is not useful. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgp0jRTs1dJ2_.pgp
Description: PGP signature