On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > requirements of the DFSG is simply false. > > > At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright > > > licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. > > This is a matter of some (heh) debate. > > Anyone who's debating whether we actually require it right now is > foolish. De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Don Armstrong -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. Craig Dickson <crdic@pacbell.net> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature