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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:

 Branden> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:37:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"John" == John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
 >> >> I think I disagree. I have not found Mozilla to be as yet an
 >> >> adequatre replacement for netscape; nor can I find something for the
 >> >> festvox packages, and I certainly would hate to lose angband and
 >> >> zangband (which are only in non free since they prevent commercial
 >> >> use; the sources are freely available for modification).
 John> I don't think that games justify the continued support of non-free
 John> software.
 >> Please read up on festvox before you start labelling it. I
 >> think this reinforces my impression; you have not looked at the
 >> packages in non-free, and have not a clue about what you are
 >> advocating throwing away.

 Branden> There are four possible pieces of software to which John could have been
 Branden> referring:

 Branden> mozilla - An Open Source WWW browser for X and GTK+
 Branden> festvox - Package `festvox' is not available.  (hmm, dunno)
 Branden> angband - A single-player, text-based, dungeon simulation
 Branden> zangband - A single-player, text-based, roguelike game

 Branden> How creative of you to deliberately misinterpret his words
 Branden> thus.

 	Bull shit. I mentioned 4 pieces of software (a mere sample iof
 what he is advocating throwing away). He answers with games aint
 wqorth saving. What is creative about bringing to light his evasion
 of the non-games part of my objection? 

 Branden> Furthermore:

 Branden> Package: angband
 Branden> Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>

 Branden> I think you know good and well which one(s) of the above
 Branden> packages was a game.  Do you think John DIDN'T know what
 Branden> Mozilla is, especially since you likened its function to an
 Branden> even MORE well-known piece of software?

 	No, he know. He is just being evasive, and hiding behind the
 fact that some of the packages I emntioned were games. It is easier
 to lable my objection as being just game related in a masterly piece
 of sophistry than toi address the issue (which you have not either).

 Branden> It is reasonable to assume ignorance of Mozilla by many
 Branden> Debian developers as all?  If not, then isn't it perfectly
 Branden> reasonable to conclude that John's remarks about games
 Branden> applied to a subset of the packages you listed?

 	How naive. No, it is more reasonable to recognize it as what
 it appears to be:  trivialize your oppositions argumewnts as just
 being ``games'', ignoring what you know are not games -- word play.

 Branden> Please try to constrain yourself to reasonable arguments and
 Branden> not manufactured offense to positions you know your
 Branden> opponents don't even hold.

 	Nice try. You ignore the baggage that words carry -- and
 ignoring the dismissive ``they are just games''aspect of Johns
 remarks is not something I'll let lie. 

 In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your
 next-door neighbor.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: