Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])
> > > > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> > > > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
> > > > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
> > > > the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I very strongly object to that.
> > >
> > > http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines.html
> > > explains what "guidelines" means here. It is the correct name.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It states:
> >
> > It is not inconceivable that there may be works which contravene the
> > DFSG, but which are still free enough for inclusion in Debian. However,
> > a GR would be required (preferably one which modifies the DFSG
> > directly) in order for this to occur. No amount of arguing on the
> > mailing lists will accomplish it.
> >
> > This "should" seems rather unreasonable.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:14:47AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> There is no "should". It would be a "must", but there's no "must" here
> either.
You're nit picking. The precise phrase is "would be required".
> > We already have numerous cases of software which does not satisfy all
> > the points of the DFSG but which people still believe are free enough
> > to be distributed and/or used by Debian. GFDL licensed documentation
> > is one rather obvious example.
> Yes, GFDL documentation is a rather obvious example that supports my
> point; it was the reason for this document in the first place. This
> stuff has to get out of main unless a GR is passed permitting it to
> stay, despite the fact that some people believe it is free enough for
> main.
I agree with you on this point.
> > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to pass further
> > resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, but at present the above
> > paragraph is simply false.
> FUD. (And irrelevant, to boot)
How so?
> > > > Likewise, Andrew has adopted some of his proposal from issues
> > > > I've raised.
> > > I don't believe that is accurate.
> > For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in
> > the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours.
>
> I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who),
> in December.
That's not how I remember it, but looking at the archive I see you're
correct.
My mistake, I apologize.
> > Likewise, after I changed "FTP archive" to "internet archive" in my
> > proposal, you changed "FTP archive" to "archive".
>
> I did that on my own, also in December.
Yeah, I missed your second draft -- my mistake.
This isn't the first time I made that mistake [I made an earlier post
which referred to the absence of these editorial changes], but that just
means I made the mistake at least twice.
> Both of these were present in the very first draft[0] that I made
> public (December 27th). That document was created over the course of
> about a week, based on the list archives from October and November,
> some suggestions from IRC, and anything I thought up on my own.
Yes.
> Your first proposal was on January 10th[1], at which point you had
> included neither of these modifications - two weeks after I first
> published a draft that included them.
Yes.
> Have you been taking lessons from Darl McBride? This is SCO's
> method. I did both of these things before you did. This is a matter of
> record, which I have just confirmed in the list archives (I went back
> as far as October 2003, when Branden first proposed a social contract
> update).
I don't know anything about McBride -- this was a mistake on my part.
> Please do not migrate from generating FUD to outright breach of
> copyright (specifically rights of attribution).
This isn't a copyright issue.
Also, please state your rationale for your FUD claims.
--
Raul
Reply to: