Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
> > hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
> > same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to h
> >If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
> >only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
> >situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
I'd go further than Thomas. I'm torn between "No renaming, nohow noway"
and "If it re
MR. JOHN UDEH
Tel: 234-
> If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should
> really be "filename limitations make a package non-free"
It's fine for you as an individual to think that _should_ be the case
(I happen to disagree but that's not relevant either) But Debian can't
take that position unless
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:49:32PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should
> > really be "filename limitations make a package non-free"
>
> It's fine for you as an individual to think that _should_ be the case
> (I happen to disagree b
5 matches
Mail list logo
