Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > > You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> > > trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
> > If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "please correct it". Do you mean "Thankyou
> for pointing this out, now and in the future"?
Yes; I don't deliberately try to miss a point, nor do I try to trim
deceptively. I trim because I quote only what I address, and if there
is something you think I should address, and I didn't, then it wasn't
malicious, and if you make a direct request, then I'm happy to
oblige.
> As should be clear by now, I never made that compromise in the first
> place. I don't think mangling language for marketing purposes, or agreeing
> not to talk about things is a good idea.
See? It's broken down. :)
> In any event, I'd be interested in exactly how *you'd* spell out the terms
> of that particular clause. What's allowed, and what's not, exactly? At
> the moment, the rule might as well be "Anything that's found offensive
> by someone who dislikes non-free has to be rephrased."
You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits
saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward
assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*. And people are
confused about it, especially when you contradict it.
The compromise is "you can include non-free on the server, but it
won't be part of Debian". When you say "oh, but it *is* part of
Debian!" then you have said that, no matter what the SC says is and is
not Debian, your opinion varies.
You can express it all you want, that's fine. But the fact that you
are so sure that Debian *does* include non-free, is a sure indication
to me that the "you can include it, but it's not Debian" compromise
has broken down. Because, whatever the SC says, so many people think
it is part of Debian, including high-visibility Debian developers,
that the compromise "you can include it but it's not part of Debian"
has failed.
You can say whatever you like, it's not what you say that is the
problem. It's the concept which you wish to express, that it's
mindless pedantry to insist that non-free is not part of Debian, it is
that *concept* which is inimical to the SC, which explicitly says, as
clearly as it can, that non-free is not part of Debian.
Thomas
Reply to: