Message72882
| Author |
lemburg |
| Recipients |
barry, lemburg, loewis, mhammond, theller |
| Date |
2008年09月09日.16:31:34 |
| SpamBayes Score |
3.267485e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<48C6A4E4.2040007@egenix.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1220975657.46.0.891112848646.issue3617@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On 2008年09月09日 17:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:
>
> I don't think this needs to be resolved before 2.6, not without a
> pronouncement from a lawyer advising the PSF. Layman's analyses of legal
> issues are void.
>
> Thus lowering the priority.
That's an interesting argument :-) What makes you think that a
layman's judgment over a layman's analysis is not void as well ?
Rather than arguing about the necessity of including the license
of a 3rd party file that we intend to include in a wide-spread
software release, wouldn't it be easier to just add the file
and be done with it, like I suggested at the very beginning of
this discussion ? |
|