Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I just read http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080917045510597
> and I see Canonical/Ubuntu as being characterized as being on the wrong
> side of this issue and I have to agree. The one avoidable mistake that
> I think was made was to ship the version that required the click-
> through. We could have done as Fedora did an stay with an earlier
> version until this was resovled.
>
No, Scott, we absolutely could not ship what Fedora shipped, and I hope
you will trust me that that is the case. We also would not have this
current conversation if we had not chosen to ship what was requested,
immediately.
Scott Kitterman wrote: www.groklaw. net/article. php?story= 200809170455105 97
> I just read http://
> and I see Canonical/Ubuntu as being characterized as being on the wrong
> side of this issue and I have to agree. The one avoidable mistake that
> I think was made was to ship the version that required the click-
> through. We could have done as Fedora did an stay with an earlier
> version until this was resovled.
>
No, Scott, we absolutely could not ship what Fedora shipped, and I hope
you will trust me that that is the case. We also would not have this
current conversation if we had not chosen to ship what was requested,
immediately.
Mark