On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release > name stable is, release name in []): > now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04 > 1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1] > 2 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] new[sarge+1] > 3 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[woody] new[sarge] > 4 sun[woody] sun[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1] > 5 sun[woody] none[woody] none[sarge] new[sarge+1]
Your analysis presumes that the act of releasing is not meaningful. Of course the old (presumably, for the sake of argument) non-DFSG-free code will continue to be available in old product. We didn't know it was non-DFSG-free then. We do now. If we make a release containing this non-DFSG-free code at any point after our awareness of this fact has been established, then we are *knowingly* violating clause one of the Social Contract, instead of unknowingly violating it. I regard that as a significant distinction. I guess you don't. In other news, Manoj Srivastava has pointed out that an alternative implementation of RPC, DCE RPC, has been released under the LGPL. He knows more about its feature set than I do, though, so I'll let him speak to that. -- G. Branden Robinson | The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpzv0x5QdpJE.pgp
Description: PGP signature