* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040728 00:58]: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming > > that there's a silent majority secretly disagreeing with the vast majority > > of d-legal (who can't be bothered to state their opinion and its rationale), > > so there's no point in arguing this further. > > Way to ignore what I actually wrote. What I said was that most DD's aren't > aware of the issue, which is very different than silent disagreement. DD's > have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material > that's > grounded in one interpretation of the DFSG. As a result, I'd bet that many > would be surprised when a license is declared non-free because of something > that they did not agree to.
And you think that less people would be suprised, if a licence is declared free, though a flaw was found in it that only under a interpretion of a minority would not be a problem. Things get their meaning through their interpretation. There are always people suprised about some meaning, up to a level of "This was meant litaral? I thought that was a joke." Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.