> On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote: > > Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much > > worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps > > pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:37:49PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Not really, because we can distribute "compiled" versions of that > (which don't have all the sillyness). Even if that code includes a class browser and allows introspection into its implementation? > [BTW: A lot of folks here want to get rid of that clause of the DFSG] After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the social contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks haven't thought things through very far. -- Raul