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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

7.06.2000 pisze Branden Robinson (branden@ecn.purdue.edu):

> A good thing, because you clearly don't understand the resolution.

Of course. How you could even think I could understand the

> This resolution will do NOTHING to prevent users from downloading,
> using, compiling from source (if available), modifying, etc. non-free
> software.

But it prevents e.g. _the packages' developers_ from use Debian BTS,
doesn't it? And the non-free BTS, does it exist? And remember, not
everyone gets Debian from network, some still want to use CDs for

> It is a largely technical proposal with some alterations to the
> Social Contract to clear up some muddy language and terminate a
> compromise that was made years ago for pragmatic reasons.

Maybe I can't read; for me it was largely political or even religious
proposal, with technical consequences. Is the Debian a religion or an
operating system?

> > I understand now: this is the purity that is the main goal of
> > Debian project. Please, please, remove more software from Debian.
> > Maybe at some time one of The Great Free Software Prophets consider
> > that some licenses, e.g. the BSD or the Artistic license as
> > not-sufficently-free for Real Free Debian? All for purity, and to
> > hell with users' needs.

> It's refreshing to read such calm, reasoned analysis.

I know that my English knowledge is very poor, but I see it's even
worse than I thought. What I write wasn't calm; it wasn't analysis, it
couldn't be reasoned in any way. That was the sarcasm, what I tried to
express. Call it ``reductio ad absurdum'', if you want.

best regards,

[ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ]
[ BOF2510053411, makabra.knm.org.pl/~baran/, alchemy pany ] [ The Answer ]

         ``What the flame does not consume, consumes the flame.''
                                                      --Aeon Flux

Reply to: