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

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:
>> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:
>> >> > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is.
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation.  I can easily
>> >> find any number of people that disagree with RMS about this, so
>> >> who's right?
>> >
>> > If you or other people claim that linking is not a case of derivation,
>> > they can advance arguments about it. Your arguments will be taken even
>> > more seriously by volunteering a reasonable chunk of change to defend
>> > such an argument in a court of law. I think 1-5M US$ ought to suffice.
>> Oh yes, I forgot.  Whoever has more money is right.
> In cases of ambiguity, correct. Which is why "ambiguous" means "no" as
> far as Debian is concerned.

Show me one case in law that isn't ambiguous.

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: