Raul Miller wrote: >> On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote: >> > Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much >> > worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps >> > pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation. > > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:37:49PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >> Not really, because we can distribute "compiled" versions of that >> (which don't have all the sillyness). > > Even if that code includes a class browser and allows introspection into > its implementation? > >> [BTW: A lot of folks here want to get rid of that clause of the DFSG] > > After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the social > contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks haven't > thought things through very far.
That was done under the "Social Contract != DFSG" theory, and it was thought through very far. :-) The DFSG also deserves some serious cleanup, though at least it claims to be "guidelines", not a "contract". -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
