On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > It implies that accepting them would not be consistent with past > > practice. > > What about the past practise of including the Emacs manual in main? What about it? > > "In any event, my proposal does not forbid the grandfathering of any > > particular package in main. > > Let me just concur with Thomas Bushnell's latest comment to this. Which was? > > 3) Do you feel the Free Software Foundation deserves selective exemption > > from the DFSG? > > No. Some of the software they produce may deserve it, though, > independently of its being produced by the FSF. Ah, so now you want an exception for *software* that doesn't meet the DFSG, not just documentation? Or do you mean "software" in the same sense the Social Contract does? I assume not since you just dichotomized between code (Netscape) and docs (GNU Emacs Manual) in your reply to Jeremy Hankins. > > 4) Is it possible for a work to be neither, or both, DFSG-free and > > DFSG-unfree at the same time and in the same respect? If so, how? > > Sure, in the same way a dog can have yet not have the Buddha nature. > Or perhaps not. You must look within your own soul for that one. I think Aristotelian logic is an adequate tool for this discussion. If you disagree, please let me know so I can stop talking to you about it. At any rate, I think the DFSG is a dichotomous tool; works are either DFSG-free, or they are not. If you do not share this premise, please say so. -- G. Branden Robinson | Somebody once asked me if I thought Debian GNU/Linux | sex was dirty. I said, "It is if branden@debian.org | you're doing it right." http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Woody Allen
Attachment:
pgpUvN0liUbXC.pgp
Description: PGP signature