Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes: > I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept? Geez, I hope not. > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Quote the parts you think I skipped over too hastily, please; referring to the whole message doesn't help, because I don't know which pieces you think I should reply to. > Look, there is nothing to discuss here. Licenses are special. They're not > documentation, or manifestos. Their exemption is universally supported > and the reasons behind that don't generalise. Everyone else has moved on > from this already. But there is more than licenses at issue here. There are also required advertising sentencies, no-warraty ascriptions, lists of contributors, "you must tell people that they can get the original version of this package at URL foo", etc. Thomas
