Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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.
Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Reply to: