I'm on the mailing list. Debian policy is to not CC the author. If
you guys can't follow Debian policy, how in the WORLD do you think
anybody can follow the DFSG, much less your interpretation of it? I
am not encouraged by your behavior. It's not something to engender
confidence.
Jason McCarty writes:
> Anyway, the only reason xsane is still dfsg-free is that the EULA _could_
> be removed. If the license prohibited removal, then it wouldn't be
> dfsg-free.
You guys are funny. You're like the temperance activist who, when
confronted with old Uncle Harry the drunkard, says "Oh, that's just
Uncle Harry. You know how he is."
If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive
----
use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
-------
including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there
is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and
that users may redistribute the program under these conditions,
and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
Why is it okay when the GPL prohibits removal of code that announces
the licensing, and yet a license which prohibits removal of code that
implements click-wrap is not okay?
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
