[EMAIL PROTECTED] (quoting me without attribution) > >>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/2005-November/001029.html > > >This is better, but misses quite a few common cases. OTTOMH, there are > >also restrictions on distributing adapted versions, > I think this could be marked by ...:change
Why? It's not a restriction on changing or distribution alone. > >making private changes, > In my original proposal it would be marked by no-source, > in this probably with :change. Yes, it should be mentioned in description. I suggest a :privacy marking. [...] > >I'm disappointed that so much effort is being made to encourage use > >of non-free. > I understand this opinion, but for example GFDL documentation was > \"free enough\" a couple of months ago [...] It's been widely seen as non-free for ages. There was just a delay in it being fixed, as some sort of compromise between views. > Everyone can have his/her own opinion, what is free enough for him/her. So why are you arguing against marking privacy restrictions? I think that's a class which some people would accept even if unhappy with other use restrictions. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
