Re: Bug#385115: Sorry, no more RC bugs for non-free data in main (was: Bug#385115: chromium-data: Unclear license for some files)
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Your objection, in essence seems to be
> "We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
> is true."
> It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable,
> and that neither refutes the other.
The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we
should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream
says they are. How is that reasonable?
I don't see why I should believe that that paraphrase implies this.
"A says X" is evidence (perhaps inadequate evidence) that X is
Then again, looking the follow-ups to this message of yours, it also
looks like my paraphrase was also inadequate -- the underlying objection
was not "absence of evidence" but, apparently, "evidence of absence".