Re: changes and standards documents
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
Philip> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
>> I think that mutable strandards are an anathema: supporting a
>> plethora of modified almost standards dilutes the benefits of a
>> standard, the strength of a standard lies in the fact that *everyone*
>> follows the same document.
Philip> I agree absolutely.
Philip> I wasn't saying that standards should all be DFSG free.
Philip> I just don't want anything that isn't DFSG free in main.
Any reasons? Or is this an expression of opinion? If the
latter, I dislike Red, and I prefer Blue.
Philip> Including anything that is non-DFSG in main, means that
Philip> people have to start checking licences, before playing with
Philip> the source --- a Bad Thing IMHO.
This is a reason. Hmm. If we go with the guarantee that you
may gleefully hack the sources of anyhing in main, with no
retribution, yes.
Of course, we have to throw out the GPL and the most other
licenses, but that may be a small price to pay for mutability.
manoj
--
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: