On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:57:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I think Steve's guess at likely interpretations isincorrect but have > very low confidence in my opinion. We're all entitled to our opinions. :) > It seems like the best course of action at this point is to try and seek > clarification of the license. I think we all agree that if what Best > Practical is trying to do is to gain ownership of patches submitted by > their rightful owners for inclusion in the product that doing so is DFSG > free if possible. This process is, and has been, underway. I don't see why that should stop us from exploring the ramfications of clauses like the one in question, what we think of them, and where we (Debian developers) disagree with each other as to what is and is not DFSG-free. -- G. Branden Robinson | Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux | he is half an animal is only half a branden@debian.org | man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Thornton Wilder
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature