On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:11:19AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté : > > > [...] And the affected ones will be users at first (lacking good > > > documentation because of an invariant section that is maybe not > > > something they consider as non-free), > > > > This is not a new effect: users who disagree with our definition of > > free software already don't have some things they may consider as free > > in Debian. > > Not *in* Debian, but *shipped by* Debian. For you, there's no > distinction between GNU Emacs manual and Macromedia Flash? This is fallacious reasoning. One can make a distinction between unlike things without asserting or implying that all things so distinguished are identical in all other respects. Example: * Moose have antlers. * Rabbits do not have antlers. :. Rabbits are not moose. * Moose have antlers. * Cats do not have antlers. :. Cats are not moose. Your argument above asserts: :. Rabbits are cats. To see why this is so, substitute the "DFSG test" for the "antler test". That the GNU Emacs Manual and Macromedia Flash Player both fail the DFSG does not mean they are identical in all other respects. The mere fact that they both fail the DFSG tells us nothing else about them. I must confess to some disappointment in the cogency of your reasoning. -- G. Branden Robinson | Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. branden@debian.org | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman
Attachment:
pgpFX4TQU8unP.pgp
Description: PGP signature