On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. > > > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy > > > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback > > > position". In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation, > > > but I can't guarantee that that's all. > > > There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction - > > rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow > > responsible for this. > > I don't understand you here. Since you seem to be acting in bad faith, I'll just assume that means that you can't think of a response. (It's the same as above, for those following along) > So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph > about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough > specifics to be refutable if it were false? > > I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. It's just another assertion of a vague "problem" without any detail. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature