On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > 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. Yes, I just felt it important to clarify that I (and I assume most people debating this issue) are actually discussing the requirements of the SC relating to documentation as opposed to yours (and others) effective requirements. In short, the characterization of the debate to which I was refering to as "foolish" was misplaced. Don Armstrong -- "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature