On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > > requirements of the DFSG is simply false. > > > > At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright > > > > licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. > > > This is a matter of some (heh) debate. > > Anyone who's debating whether we actually require it right now is > > foolish. > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing > the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's > actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see.
Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
