Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
* David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net> [040728 00:58]:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
> > that there's a silent majority secretly disagreeing with the vast majority
> > of d-legal (who can't be bothered to state their opinion and its rationale),
> > so there's no point in arguing this further.
>
> Way to ignore what I actually wrote. What I said was that most DD's aren't
> aware of the issue, which is very different than silent disagreement. DD's
> have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material that's
> grounded in one interpretation of the DFSG. As a result, I'd bet that many
> would be surprised when a license is declared non-free because of something
> that they did not agree to.
And you think that less people would be suprised, if a licence is
declared free, though a flaw was found in it that only under a interpretion
of a minority would not be a problem.
Things get their meaning through their interpretation. There are always
people suprised about some meaning, up to a level of "This was meant
litaral? I thought that was a joke."
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: