Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])
> > 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?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:27:49AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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"
That should have been "problems" -- I don't always hit the keyboard hard
enough, and I don't always catch all the resulting typos.
> 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.
That's oversimplified, but essentially accurate.
> 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.
Counter example -- we might update the guidelines to fix some of the
problems which result from dropping all non-free and contrib packages.
> I claim that you were not talking about this at all, but were merely
> spreading FUD, and are now trying to excuse it.
I claim that you're not thinking this through.
> > > > > > > Please do not migrate from generating FUD to outright breach of
> > > > > > > copyright (specifically rights of attribution).
...
> > > 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.
My claim is that this is not a copyright issue.
--
Raul
Reply to: