On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:31, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > *speaking as an FSF employee, but not stating an official position of > > the foundation* > > > > I just got out of a meeting on how to clean up (2)(c). No guarantees, > > but I'm working for it. Our initial thought is to move from normal > > startup to something like -v. > > This is perfectly fine with me, but *please* don't let the new (2)(c) go > into a whole lot of detail about how *exactly* the content must be > presented. > > That is, I have a pipe dream about standardizing the --version outputs > of commands such that you can always suck out the upstream version with: > > foo --version | head -1 | awk '{print $2}' > > In other words, it's fine to mandate that the material of interest be > presented in some human-comprehensible format[1] (provided they speak the > language :) ), but please don't specify a format in the license.
I agree. We tend to avoid that sort of mandate anyway, but here, we should be especially careful. > > OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept > > that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I > > would be happy for it to brew some more (although I'll have to take off > > my FSF hat, of course). > > Can you explicate to the list what the "Affero bit" is? See my other message in this thread. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson