-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Changing some working simply because you are offended by it is just >> plain wrong. You are making a decision based solely on your own personal >> criteria, rather than that of sound technical advice. > >I think a Debian developer has a perfectly legitimate right to do >this. I'm certainly *not* saying he ought to in any particular case. > >There is no rule *anywhere* in Debian that one has some kind of >obligation to give upstream authors an unlimited soapbox. Indeed, if >an upstream author insisted on one, we would regard that as a >requirement thoroughly incompatible with the DFSG. Isn't this exactly the obligation you impose when you allow that invariant sections from the GFDL are DFSG-free? The classic invariant section is literally RMS's soapbox in the EMACS documentation... >Thomas > > > - -- Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE8kalC+ZSKG3nWr3ARAt69AJ9e7f3f+E7fQk3AYWp3+LmhpPmHeACeOint Jo8Q1ziDYqa8OADKZUHFiPk= =42h7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
