Re: Draft: Graphviz summary
Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Scripsit Henning Makholm <email@example.com>
> > *D R A F T*
> > Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
> I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my
> summary. Please indicate why:
> [ ] What a load of drivel! You're trying to be holier than RMS.
> [ ] Good grief! Next you'll be saying Qmail and Opera belong in main.
> [ ] Type error! Balanced opinions not allowed in @lists.debian.org.
[ X ] Insufficient time.
My previous comments about licence summaries being Evil Bad and Wrong
hold. Given this is about graphviz in particular, why not summarise
just graphviz's situation?
I also think you are predicting the future in several places without
making clear the basis for those claims. That's up to you, but I
don't have the data to endorse those predictions.
The body of the summary looks fine, but I wasn't watching closely enough
to know whether it's accruate, it gives no references and I don't have
enough time to reread all that email right now.
I hope that explains my lack of support for this summary in a way
you (or someone else) might use to improve it.