Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> said:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable
>> > resolution which I proposed; the preceding text was preambulatory
>> > text, not rationale, and was submitted as part of the resolution
>> > itself.
>> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
> It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
Nope. The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the
only actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r to
sgree to resolve to do whatever.
> Or perhaps you think no one ever intended to ratify "We the people"?
I can't help it if a bunch of dead white men got is all wrong
a couple of hundred years ago :)
Look, I pledge allegiance to the flag and the constitution of
the US, not to the preamble and other related material to the
constitution of the US.
The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the
GPL. When you derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble --
and you modify and rename the rest to create your own license.
Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.
The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a
remarkable Christian forbearance among men. -- Ambrose Bierce
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C