[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: filters: Licence problems

On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:43:33PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:

[ interesting solution to exercise 1, which I'm not quoting to avoid rule
  (2), but I have to comply with anyway because I want this message to make
  its way to debian-devel, or debian-humour if it existed ]

According to rule (0) you have to comply with (1), (2) and (3).  From the
text of rule (3), which I won't quote because of the previously expressed
reasons, it seems as if it will always hold because the messages have to
make it somehow to the lists and (3) doesn't say which DN has to be a FQDN
so it applies to each and every one of them.

Because of rule (3), (2) applies, but that was already the case according to
(0). Since the text of (2) doesn't invalidate (6) but just says (8) also
applies but (6) is no longer a requierement, it doesn't conflict with (3)
which says (6) a requierement.

Having cleared that problem, (2) applies because Marcus quoted Raul and
David. (3) applies because of the reasons exposed in the previous paragraph.
Taking that into account, (4), (6), (8) and (42) apply. (1) applies because
Marcus assumed Raul was serious about the need for a nice long legal
document indicating what's appropriate traffic for the
debian-grumpy-party-poopers list. (5) and (7) apply because of this.

It is not clear whether or not Marcus was trying to make someone happy (5)
with that message, but one could argue he was making Raul happy because he
was fulfilling the request for a nice long legal document indicating what's
appropiate traffic for the debian-grumpy-party-poopers list.

The number of letters (2111) divided by the number of words (328) in the
message is roughly 6.4; the number of colums over the number of lines is
1.7, so this goes against (7) (I'd like to understand what this rule tries
to address -- force short messages or force the use of short words?)

I can produce a signature like Marcus' with figlet, so that's ok with (8)
but I don't think Marcus' signature summarizes his position.

(9) doesn't apply.

(42) is not a rule.

IMO the message doesn't comply with the rules it defines.

Reply to: