On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 08:33:00PM +0100, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > >OK, I read it with emphasis on "*editable* format", not on "must > >publish", but this is another point that could be clarified by a new > >revision or similar. > [snip] > >I don't this is a problem either. The 5-year limit applies when one > >tracks the changes using an electronic program like cvs. > > Ultimately it doesn't matter what you and I think.
That is not my point. If the license is not clear, one should try to clarify it, not lay back and just pick something else. > It's what Debian > thinks. They get to pick what counts as DFSG-free. It's just one of > those things that we can't do anything about because Debian is very > carefuly designed so the notion of freenes can't be compromised. So all > we can do is shrug and accept their veredict. What about not taking care of what Debian thinks? Debian is not /the/ institution that defines "free". Let them fight their crusade. What about trying to resolve the issues so that the PDL clarifies as DFSG free? The points are minor and only a matter of interpretation. ciao Christian -- NP: Linkin Park - Points Of Authority --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
