On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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.
> In short, the characterization of the debate to which I was refering
> to as "foolish" was misplaced.
Uh, if that wasn't the debate you were referring to, then it wasn't the
one being characterised as foolish in the paragraph you quoted...
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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature