On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:44:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
OTOH, if you think my interpretation of DFSG is inadequate, I could try to
expose it better, and we could also move this to -legal (perhaps I should
have
started there in first place).
Yes, I still disagree with this
Scripsit Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think I'll try to expose better my point, and also move it to -legal.
I think -legal is the wrong list. Is the license status of the
software in question? Not as far as I can see from the build log.
Your complaint appears to be that you think the
Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think -legal is the wrong list. Is the license status of the
software in question? Not as far as I can see from the build log.
s/build/bug/, of course.
--
Henning Makholm Need facts -- *first*. Then
El sábado, 26 de noviembre de 2005 a las 11:11:32 +0100, Robert Millan escribía:
That suggests if the maintainer disagrees in, say, DFSG #1 (Debian will
remain
100% free), then we don't have to treat as release-critical an inclussion of
DFSG #4 states:
We will be guided by the needs of
4 matches
Mail list logo
