On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:44:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > As usual, you fail to notice the part where you then go on to refuse > to consider any alternatives, For instance: Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011202075756.GD26052@deadbeast.net> "> * It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes? Why not 32,000 bytes? You want 32,000 instead? You've got it." Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011203221311.GA11875@deadbeast.net> "> I'm actually of the opinion that Debian shouldn't allow any invariant > text except licenses and copyright notices. I wouldn't object to amending my proposal along these lines." "I'm willing to bend a bit to accomodate the GNU folks on a utilitarian basis." Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011202075756.GD26052@deadbeast.net> "I'm happy to restore the original clause 5) if you feel that would help prevent this misunderstanding." Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011203044436.GB30855@deadbeast.net> "See how much invariant text there is. If there's more than a certain amount, decide whether you still think the package should be in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution, and if so, raise the issue on debian-legal so that the judgement of several people can applied. I'm happy to add this language, or something similar, to my proposal if it would alleviate some of your concerns." In addition to these outright offers to amend my proposal, I've considered several alternatives at length in many of mails on this subject. I trust you don't the Message-ID's and quotes for those as well, but all you have to do is tell me I haven't and I'll oblige you. Because I rejected some alternatives, like "why not just not bother with any of this at all", or "why not just give the package maintainer complete discretion" doesn't mean I didn't consider them. > or to consider whether dropping parts of your wonderful Plan might > make it easier to achieve a consensus that will mostly meet your > goals, Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011203221311.GA11875@deadbeast.net> "I wouldn't object to amending my proposal along these lines. In this case I would eliminate clause 3) entirely and amend 2) to include the entire text of the license as opposed to just the legally binding part(s)." > and insist anyone who might thing you're wrong has obviously failed to > read and understand what you've written, Perhaps you're right; perhaps they read and understand what I write, but then make demonstrably false statements and hope I won't come up with concrete evidence of me doing the the very things they claim I don't. > and spend more time citing debating rules than actually trying to convince > anyone of anything. Forgive me for thinking that logic and rationality should be our guides. I'm that's wrong, I don't want to be right. > Not that there's any chance you'll clue yourself in this year. Maybe > in two or three though. I have to agree that it is possible that I may someday come to share your Machiavellian approach to persuasive argument. -- G. Branden Robinson | Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your branden@debian.org | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpM1mrHg04k1.pgp
Description: PGP signature