On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4 > and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also > expressed that. Not everybody --- the camp is clearly divided.
I havn't seen dissention on this issue. Some people have said that they don't like it (many DD's don't like #4; that's why it's a a compromise), and others (eg. Thomas and Branden) have pointed out that renaming may not necessarily accomplish what you want. The rest of this seems, to me, like you're trying to use #4 in ways it wasn't intended to be used. I'll leave replies to people more experienced with Latex and the DFSG than myself. > I can accept the argument: that you want it excluded and intend to change the > clause in this way, but this is a different argument then (and I don't think > that this is actually the consensus within Debian right now). The DFSG is a set of guidelines, not a legal document; it has room for interpretation. Debian doesn't change the DFSG to indicate the details of every debian-legal decision that required interpretation. Yes, this means there's some ambiguity if all a person has for reference is the DFSG text. (That's one reason these things are discussed publically.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
