On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 17:01 -0400, Bake Timmons wrote: > > My point is that: > > > Thus, summary scripts would be OK, since COPYING would appear as any > other non-free item--except having a comment "waiver" (footnote). > This would be less ambitious than what Sam suggests, since scripts > would still be "ignorant" about non-free exceptions. However, there > is nothing preventing footnotes from being analyzed to provide such > "knowledge" in the future. Indeed, there might be additional bits of > knowledge in footnotes that contribute to automated uses.
So to make sure i understand correctly: It would be marked /non-free/ with a note about why we include it, rather then /free/ with a note about why we consider it free (its a licence). kk -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
