[This is Marco's usual troll for -legal, but since we're not on -legal right now, I guess it's worth rebutting once...] On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:06:33AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >Here are the top ten contributors to the list over the past 14 months or so. > With two or three exceptions, all of them are DFSG-revisionists. > This pretty much sums up the debian-legal situation. Marco subscribes to the notion that the DFSG was originally only meant to apply to ELF binaries, and anything else is de jure free. Anybody who says different, including anybody who was around at the time, can be dismissed as a 'revisionist'. > >"Consensus-building" is the flip side of the coin. It's a generic > >feel-good term. > No, "consensus" is what we had before people like you started trying to > change what was the accepted meaning of the DFSG. Since all objections have been dismissed, obviously there was "consensus", with the exception of the thing currently being dismissed. It's a fairly conventional circular argument; most people on -legal have stopped paying any attention. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature