On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > The DFSG has a problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed > software which belongs in Debian. Rather than amend it, you're > interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want. That's fine, but > what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity > to mean what *they* want? And then they insist that their software > MUST go into Debian. If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance > (they created this software for this express purpose of putting it > into Debian, relying on the DFSG to mean what it says, not what you > say it says. You will harm their business if you refuse to go by the > plain meaning of the DFSG).
... Which would be complete and utter bullshit, because Debian has never represented, *anywhere*, that it will package all software someone releases under a DFSG-compliant license. Anyone who would sue Debian for such a reason is, prima facie, a litigious idiot who does not warrant consideration when evaluating whether Debian is exposing itself to lawsuits. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpga1VqAnHBP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
