Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, Nov 21 2005, 10:25:26PM]:
> > I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
> > things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
> > us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright.
> I think you are wrong on both counts. You are certainly free to vote
Let's compare that with some license: GPL expects a binary software
releaser to keep the source available for three years. This is generaly
accepted as a period which is long enough to make the source not
interesting for anyone. Should we force that to be changed to 4 weeks
(rather than 36 months) in GPLv3? This would also apply to the lots of
software saying "GPL v2 or any later version" in the source because it
was the default header template.
Great deal, isn't?
> as you wish, of course, but your amazement doesn't carry much weight.
> Rather than be amazed, maybe you should look to see what might be
> right in what is being said by other people with a different view.
Sure. And this needs enough noise to make another case of "editorial
changes amendment" less possible.
Ambassador Vir Cotto: Prophecy is a guess that comes true. When it doesn't,
it's a metaphor.
-- Quotes from Babylon 5 --