Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we > could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the > previous messages on this thread.
Look, the procedure is to ask debian-legal. Sometimes things take discussion and time. Feel free to enter the discussion too. But your attitude is totally bogus here. Sometimes we have to argue through something, sometimes it really takes a while. It's not appropriate for you to declare "I'm going to ignore debian-legal and ask the FTP masters to do it". > If you tell stefano, we feel that this licence is non DFSG free, but don't > give more precise objections, i understand that he will get frustrated. And > the one line aggregation is not a good example, i don't think it will hold in > court altough IANAL. What do you mean by "won't hold in court"? The DFSG isn't a court-enforced document. It's up to Debian, and only Debian, to decide what meets it. So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is distributed on. O'Reilly really doesn't want free documentation. It's perfectly clear why; they have *never* wanted free documentation. Thomas
