Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > I assert that this interpretation is most faithful to the arguments > > presented by proponents of Amendment A during the discussion. [...]
I assert that their arguments are not part of the position statement (= not part of what was approved by vote) and that trying to interpret hidden meanings of the position statement is daft. [...] > We happen to have a clarification from one copyright holder (the FSF), Can you remind me where? I found RMS going to ask a lawyer in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00212.html but the not-for-debian comment wasn't very long after that. [...] > (I still wonder: the FSF has an upgrade mechanism for its licenses, has > known about this problem for years, and has acknowledged it as a problem. > Where the hell is the fixed license? The only reason Debian is expending > so much time on this is because of the FSF's stonewalling. So much of > this would be simpler if the FSF would fulfill their responsibility of > fixing their license, which they assumed when they begin proliferating > it.) It's delayed until after GPLv3. It seems that FSF won't run concurrent consultations. See message from Chancellor of FSF Europe Chapter Italy: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-January/005448.html FSF Europe seem very friendly, open and transparent, even when I disagree with them about a topic. In the meantime, some supporters like savannah-hackers want to require use of the buggy FDL before hackers may use FSF services. See: http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4303 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2006-03/msg00076.html -- 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]
