-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi Wouter, first thanks for your explanation, a bit more exhaustive, as well to Christian for his link to the GFDL debate (from another mail). of course i intend to release software free as of speech, so i am evaluating the possibility to remove the invariant sections for your Sarge release (even if the codename sounds a bit too militarised for my taste). to take this decision, i would really like to know what is the FSF position on the GFDL issue, wether that differs from the Debian policy or not. consider that i didn't knew all this at all! in fact i was sarcastic when i named the GFDL invariant section, but here i see more and more that jokes are really not aloud here ;) well i just intended to slow down the arrogance of arguments being thrown at me, still obtaining the inverse effect. anyway it's really not my intention to step over your interpretation of software freedom for such a small detail. well, thanks for taking it easy. and a suggestion: what about including a header or a brief explanation on top of the bugs mailed to upstream authors, to specify that they might not reflect the decisions nor the intentions of Debian developers? if i would have known that beforehand i would have been way less alarmed by lamer-Dan ;) ciao - -- jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Cryptographically signed mail, see http://gnupg.org iD8DBQFBrh1tWLCC1ltubZcRAhgbAJ0ReTE2DThd42TJJ6d1bkvftH0aGwCdEVtn HCxD5ApfikcIMWfVDJ/3ICg= =dXzL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
