Glenn Maynard writes: >On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >> I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I >> think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much >> more clear than it is now. > >I think it derives directly from DFSG#1--certainly the spirit, even if >the letter is debated. I think adding new guidelines that are subsets >of existing ones would set a very bad precedent, since it implies that >the DFSG is to be read literally, as a set of rules, instead of a set of >guidelines.
Do you not believe that would be better than the current situation where we have regular disagreements on some of this? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth
