Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for >> debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than >> anyone else's opinion. > >We've thought about it and discussed it; they haven't! That is an intrinsic >reason! That's a shit reason. I've thought about it and discussed it. My line is somewhere completely different to yours. By that argument, my opinion is just as good as debian-legal's. >Look, I'd be happy (if I was a DD already...) to propose GRs to settle some >of these issues once and for all. But I'm not, and people complain about >*that* too. If it's debian-legal's opinion that the DFSG does not embody the set of freedoms we consider to be vital, then the right thing to do /is/ to propose a GR to modify the DFSG. I'm entirely happy to do so, though not necessarily to argue for it. >Thanks for your informed discussion on why you disagree with some of these >tests; you are the rare bird around here and contribute a lot to the >discussions. Thanks. It's nice to know I'm not viewed as a kook :) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
