On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you > >> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't" > >> looks astonishingly bad? > > > > So the real reason not to fix it is to save face by not admitting mistakes. > > I expected better from Debian; don't ask me why. > > What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes > that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're > not?
You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch clauses? If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in the list archives. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]