Re: Resolving the controversy
"Sandro Tosi" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 13:41, Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > "Sandro Tosi" <email@example.com> writes:
> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> > Jacob Hallén <email@example.com> writes:
> >> >> Debian is not 100% free software, and it never has been.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed. Those instances where it's not free are bugs to be
> >> > fixed.
> >> So, you actually wanna do something to fix those bugs or wanna
> >> simply talk about them?
> > That's a false dichotomy. The talk in this context is regarding
> > whether they are DFSG violations at all.
> Really? so can you please show us what you've done to fix them?
You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix
them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. That's what is
being discussed: whether certain freedoms are or are not DFSG
violations (and therefore bugs).
Demanding credentials from me personally doesn't seem to be addressing
> You're discussing docs for a project you're NOT part of
Does that change whether what I say is true or false?
As it happens I am a part of the Debian project. But that shouldn't
matter, and I'll ask you to kindly stop attacking people instead of
> and you're proposing resolutions/suggestions you can NOT even vote
> for or against; I can't see the point.
The point is to encourage rational discussion of fact and principle,
and discourage false arguments, about a resolution to the foundational
documents of the project. Documents whose promise I very much want
upheld by all project members, whether they can vote or not.
If all you're interested in doing is demanding my credentials and
painting me as an outsider, I don't think this contributes to the
discussion at all.
\ “Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; |
`\ those in philosophy only ridiculous.” —David Hume, _A Treatise |
_o__) of Human Nature_, 1739 |