Re: {debian-legal} Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > > Then why do you want them put in some special "debian-political" package
> > > which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
> > I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky suggestion,
>
> Actually you said it was a "clever idea". It wasn't particularly clear
> that you didn't want it taken seriously, and I'm not sure how else you'd
> like it taken.
It was an idea for something that might be a reasonable compromise
position. If it's sufficiently wacky that it's not a credible
solution in your mind, then it's not worth pursuing further.
My primary goal is for us to reach a reasonable compromise that
all of us can be happy with.
> "When I elide things, it's usually because I've thought them to be
> peripheral", was what you said.
Right, but that's a judgment made quickly, and which might well be
wrong. If you think something warrants more attention than I've given
it, then say so by repeating it and saying "I think you didn't give
this enough attention".
> Why are you continuing to argue against positions no one's taken? No. One.
> Is. Disputing. That. Licenses. Need. Not. Be. Able. To. Be. Modified.
Um, I think I made that clear, but I'll try again.
A: Everyone agrees that there is some invariant text in main, and
that there is nothing wrong with this.
B: There is disagreement about which invariant text should be
permitted.
However, there have been people who chimed in with things like
"everything in main should be 100% free", when in fact, nobody
actually believes that (because it's the extreme position that every
agrees that nobody holds).
> This has been discussed, even in messages you've replied to. If you're
> interested in them, go back, read them, and reply to them without just
> skipping either the suggested solutions or the arguments as to why they
> make sense.
You're attributing some bad faith to me that is really not present.
If I've missed something, then I'm sorry, but please repeat it afresh
so that I can understand it. I read everything that's been posted,
and when I say "Please address argument X", it's not helpful to just
say "I already did". I read that other part, and it's not clear to me
how it addresses argument X, or I wouldn't bring it up.
Reply to: