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

Re: the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:59:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> > What brought about this change of heart?
> Historical context can be persuasive, but it is not dispositive.

Oh yeah, and lest you think you've "caught me out in a contradiction", and
recasting my position retrospectively to avoid embarrassment, let me assure
you that you haven't.  :)

Permit me to quote myself on -private, from a few months ago, well before
your clever discovery of my "change of heart":

  From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
  To: debian-private@lists.debian.org
  Subject: Re: GNU Free Documentation License revisited
  Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 02:13:15 -0500
  Message-ID: <20040504071315.GE27359@deadbeast.net>


  I cite Bruce because, based upon my review of the archives of
  debian-private, his interpretation of the SC exemplifies that of the
  Debian developers who approved the document.  As the primary author of
  the document, his perspective doesn't have to be dispositive to be

Please note the final sentence.

I'm afraid can't find you in the current Debian Developers' keyring
provided in the debian-keyring package, so perhaps you are not one.
Hopefully you can find one to independently verify the accuracy of my
assertion, as -private is not publicly archived.

In the future, you might want to make fewer presumptions.

G. Branden Robinson                |     It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     authors.  They have every right to
branden@debian.org                 |     license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     like.  -- Craig Sanders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: