Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <email@example.com> writes:
>> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.