On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:33:20 +0530 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What I understood is that is that we can't explicitly say in words > the reason behind why we don't include certain software. I don't > consider the context in the workflow that I described as not allowed. > Spot, let me know what you think. If we need to get legal > confirmation on the specific workflow as I suggested, let's get that > done. I personally feel that you're trying any way possible to get around what Legal has said. It's very reasonable to assume that if you attempted to do /something/, were told that Fedora can't help you do /something/ but if you happen to look over /here/, that we are now putting context into what /here/ is and what /here/ provides. This is what Legal does not want us to do. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
