On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear > > > that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to clean > > > it up. It's neither fair nor correct to say that nothing has changed. > > > > It's still non-free for the same reasons, so nothing relevant has changed. > > You mean that you still believe it's non-free because nothing relevant > to your reasons has changed, and you're pretending that other perspectives > don't exist. Irrelevant by the law of limiting factors. But I haven't seen anybody seriously advance any other positions. > Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new > and I've never seen a consensus on the issue. This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers they don't like by claiming "no consensus" is really fucking stupid. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature