Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does an empty one liner really adds something to the information contained in > the said documentation ?
There is no such thing as an "empty one liner". If it's empty, then it's not one line, it's zero. A one liner adds something more than .0000000001 units of content, which is *not* empty. > Also notice that changing the spaces and such of a source code is not > considered a modification, altough it adds/removes things, and the resulting > patch is by no means empty (unless you specify the right options to diff, > that is. Right, that's why my suggested interrogatory to O'Reilly is about the addition of a single page of text--*not* zero pages. > I have no time for it right now, but maybe i will do. The problem > with this is that you need to be sure that all, ort at least a big > enough majority of debian developper agree with your current > interpretation. So the problem with my understanding is that you are in the vast minority? I think that is rather a problem with *yours*. > > Well, we are saying so as clearly as we can: aggregations must be > > permitted, even aggregations which add in only tiny amounts. > > You are saying, but not the DFSG, this is the central point > here. and altough you have, by the fact that you represent > debian-legal, a strong power on these decision, you by no mean > represent a majority of debian developpers. The aggregation clause (sigh, once again) does not say anything about the size of the aggregation, and thus includes even very small ones. If you think a majority of Debian developers are in favor of non free documentation, then bring that up SOMEWHERE ELSE, NOT HERE. > Again, see my other mail on this, the fact that we have a huge thread on this > alone shows that this is not plain meaning. It's not a huge thread--it's just you. You, and nobody else but you. Boo boo, pa doo. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
