Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
- From: Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:42:00 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <cmdik8$9nd$1@wonderland.linux.it>
- References: <20041028214201.J13081@links.magenta.com> <874qkel1eg.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <20041028222718.N13081@links.magenta.com> <clt1fr$mf0$1@wonderland.linux.it> <20041029094012.Q13081@links.magenta.com> <cltos5$875$1@wonderland.linux.it> <20041029125318.U13081@links.magenta.com> <cm41bc$mas$1@wonderland.linux.it> <20041101080131.M13081@links.magenta.com> <cm6mo2$77d$1@wonderland.linux.it> <20041101203708.R13081@links.magenta.com>
moth@debian.org wrote:
>> >On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> >> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
>> >> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
>> >> theory?
>If I ignore something as a part of a system when that thing is outside
>that system, there doesn't need to be any pretending.
OK, then I have issues with the english language. Let's try again:
So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
ignore it's running on your system? Which part of the policy or SC
justifies this theory?
--
ciao,
Marco
Reply to: