On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:51:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > > Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but > > > I've usually disagreed with them. > > > > I'm afraid you then think that you have to purge every GPLv2 > > preamble from Debian main. [...] > > I'm afraid that your telepathy device is broken. Quite probably! ;-) > While we should > (note should, not must) purge the preamble from packages which contain > the GPL where it is not needed for the distribution of the package, it > remains because other parts of our promise are equally important. > > This doesn't make licence texts an exception to our rules, but an > example of how to handle conflict in our promise without giving free > rein to all abuses. You can describe that a conflict-resolution strategy, I hadn't thought about that from this point of view, but anyway I'm not sure that a conflict in the promise is a good thing to keep... Maybe making an explicit exception is better (err, "less worse"?)... > The rest of the 'slippery slope' posted vanishes > as a result of removing the false dichotomy. Sure, once the premise is proved false, all the consequences vanish. > Sorry it's grey, not black or white for you. Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are interpreted? -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpRYoHVX1wWP.pgp
Description: PGP signature