Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:22:06AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:24:51AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked
> > something as "Editorial amendments" into it, a 25% minority is enough to
> > block reverting it...
>
> Nobody was "tricked". I believe this claim so laughable, and at the
> same time so insulting to Debian Developers ("we forgot to read what
> we voted for! I want a do-over!"), that I don't feel inclined to argue
> it further. Again, the SC is crystal clear; again, only a GR will
> change that.
>
> My belief, from experience of many discussions on these topics on these
> lists, is that a huge majority of Debian Developers agree that documentation
> must follow the DFSG, that a fringe minority who want GNU documentation in
> Debian at any and all cost are making ludicrous claims, and that nobody is
> falling for them. I'm willing to continue arguments pertaining to the GFDL,
> but these "we didn't *really* want to require documentation to be free"
> arguments are going nowhere and are a waste of time, so I'm dropping them.
Only one month after GR2004-003, a two third majority of the Debian
developers preferred in GR2004-004 reverting GR2004-003 over keeping the
changes of GR2004-003.
You do believe that two thirds are a "fringe minority" and less than one
third is "a huge majority"?
After the whole GR2004-003 mess it's hard to say what the majority of
Debian developers really wants.
> Glenn Maynard
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: