Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I think that we should not just assume that the developers > > think that violating the DFSG is acceptable just to release a new > > version. > > Sure, but we shouldn't assume the contrary either
What, in your view, would allow such an assumption? I'd have thought an explicit agreement to follow the social contract would be *exactly* what's required to allow assumption that the agreement will be followed. > I'm quite sure the answer would be «yes», but here I'm entering > myself the guesswork terrain which permeates this thread. I don't see how claims of “guesswork” can be raised for assuming that an explicit agreement remains in place unless explicitly nullified. -- \ “Room service? Send up a larger room.” —Groucho Marx | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
