Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much
> > worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
> > pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:37:49PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Not really, because we can distribute "compiled" versions of that
> (which don't have all the sillyness).
Even if that code includes a class browser and allows introspection into
> [BTW: A lot of folks here want to get rid of that clause of the DFSG]
After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the social
contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks haven't
thought things through very far.