Scripsit Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > you are missing the point.
No, you are. > this "Non-DFSG:" field is *NOT* intended to describe why a package fails a > particular clause, it is intended solely to *list* which clause(s) it fails. > nothing more, nothing less. The point is that I don't se *any* reasonable use for such a listing. > this is useful in itself. How? > it also has the advantage of being factual. But meaningless. > a license either satisfies a particular DFSG clause, or it does not. Oh, you wouldn't know. -- Henning Makholm Set your feet free! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
