Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the subject line. Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're wrong". This was "Here is documented evidence of you lying". On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > > 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". That was my point. This phrase is a "must" form, not a "should". > > > 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? An implication that problems are created, without *ever* describing *any* problems, now or in the past, so that explaining why you are wrong is impossible. That's "FUD". In response to an objection to making the DFSG a set of requirements, rather than guidelines. That's "irrelevant". > > Please do not migrate from generating FUD to outright breach of > > copyright (specifically rights of attribution). > > This isn't a copyright issue. Right of attribution is a part of copyright law everywhere I have ever heard of. It is the (usually automatic, non-transferrable) right of an author to have things they did attributed to them, rather than to somebody else (and to not have things attributed to them which they did not do). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature