On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be > >>> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. > >> > >> My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems! > > > > We don't agree? So what? > > Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others > are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with > you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to > decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit > and/or support various invariant screeds? I have a feeling l.d.o > would simply explode!
One could argue that by definition, anything Debian distributes is non-secondary. I don't really want to go there, though. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
pgpsC8hB23QFC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
