On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:32:59PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Nevertheless your opinion is interesting to me [...] > > > > [explanations] > > Thanks for that.
If you find clarification of the license that are grounded in the actual text and written by B. Kuhn or the FSF, please forward them. > > > > But it is probably not the right venue to discuss the AGPLv3. > > > > > > Perhaps not. But I don't want to use debian-legal whose focus is > > > on DFSG compatibility and whose on-list consensus judgements don't > > > always seem to align with the actual decisions of those responsible > > > for these judgements within Debian. > > > > Why do you assume I do ? > > I'm sorry to have apparently offended you. I didn't intend to imply > that you had suggested debian-legal. It seemed to me that > debian-legal was an obvious possible place for this conversation and I > was explaining why I chose not to use it. Sorry, I just wanted to warn you that I was far from having the majority opinion in Debian. (We need to fix debian-legal, but this is another story.) Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
