On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:14:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > Here you have implied that problems are created. You have never > > described any problems that are created. This paragraph is clearly > > intended to suggest the presence of problems which don't exist. > > That's not really true > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01530.html > > ... your perceived problem "we can't solve some problem which package > A ought to be useful for" becomes a much larger problem with your > proposed solution. > > Now, granted, that wasn't in response to you. But your idea that I > never described any problems that are created is false. > > In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down: > > [a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives. > [b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian. > [c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available. > [d] Dpkg will under some circumstances uninstall software which can't > be upgraded. > [e] Using software which has been removed from the system is a problem > for some people. > > Is that specific enough for you? > > Or are you actually claiming that these sorts of problems can't happen? I am claiming that you were not talking about this. Here is what you said: > > > > > > > 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. "we would need to pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating" You are now suggesting that you were classifying the sole action of the resolution (removing non-free) as a "problem" - so the "further resolutions to fix the problem" would be to undo it. In effect, you are saying that if a supermajority of developers decided that they didn't want do distribute non-free, then this would be a problem, and they would have to form a supermajority decision to distribute non-free in order to "fix" it. That's nonsense. I claim that you were not talking about this at all, but were merely spreading FUD, and are now trying to excuse it. > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > There's at least two problems with this argument. > > > > > > [1] I never laid claim to any copyrighted work -- I [mistakenly] laid > > > claim to having posted a couple concepts before you. Copyright isn't > > > about concepts, it's about the works themselves. > > > > > > [2] The phrases in question are extremely short -- even if the issue > > > were those exact phrases, copyright wouldn't work that way. You might > > > as well try to claim copyright on individual words. > > > > Handwaving. This is not a court of law; technicalities are not an excuse. > > Copyright is a legal issue. > > > You claimed authorship; that means you think there is a > > legitimate claim of authorship. > > You're confused: I have authorship -- I did indeed introduce a proposal > with those changes. > > What I don't have is first authorship -- you introduced your own proposal > with those changes before I did. > > Once again: this is not a copyright issue. You might as well claim that > because you say "the sky is blue" no one else is allowed to make such > a claim. The same, identical, handwaving. Your claim was "I created this, and you copied it". My claim, which I proceeded to prove, was that the opposite is true. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature