Hello, This is a small follow up to fix typing error and clarify a thing.
> So, just because people wrote immutable standard documents in the past, this > is not a reason to encourage a free+acceptable restrictions license in the > future. I meant: "..., this is not a reason *not* to encourage a..." > > We should not flip-flop from a high moral ground and accept > > anything pragmatism based on what document we look at. > > I see the "verbatim" section as a pragmatism. Reading it again, I think I didn't understand what you wrote in the first place. Would you mind to rephrase it? Especially I don't know if the second part of the sentence still belongs to "We should not", or if this is something "we should". Thank you, Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
