Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Again, if it is going to be ignored anyway, why not remove it.
Because it's a waste of time to try and make the DFSG legalistically pristinely perfect. We know what it means, our users know what it means, and once in a while, someone is confused. > BTW, if i would make such a proposal, would you second me, and also maybe > reread it for english correctness ? Probably not. I think it's a waste of time for Debian to be navel gazing about such irrelevancies. Proposing changes which seek to change *nothing* about what we actually do is a waste of time, in my opinion. > So you prefer to ignore what is written and convince others that it should be > interpreted as you wish. No, I use what *is* written, and interpret it as we always have. It's you that wants to add all kinds of qualifications to the actual wording. > But it is dishonest to say that you have to follow the guidelines so that it > can be part of debian, and later, rather than use the said guideline, play > with some non intuitive interpretation of said guidelines. We never promise to *anyone*. There is *NO* rule that if you follow the guidelines it will be part of Debain. If someone wants to know what's necessary, we can easily help > But it is publicly written nowhere, apart on the archive of this > list, anyway. No. > And this is against our _no hiding stuff_ commitment. Wrong. "no hiding stuff" means that we let everybody join in and listen in. Indeed, this is so far from a secret, that I want to be damn sure that O'Reilly understands it before we put their text into Debian. > Also it would be nice to add some bit about the status of documentation as > software. That is already in progress; please don't mix it up with the aggregation issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
