Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Branden> You color your language interestingly, fully aware of the
Branden> the fact that the Debian Social Contract isn't a "contract"
Branden> in the sense that a group of individuals create a contract
Branden> with each other.
Interesting. So our collective word means so little to you,
that you are now arguing in lawyerease that we can't be held to our
word? This is not a position that I would like to be associated
Branden> Before we can talk about "reneging" on such an agreement we
Branden> have to consider whether it is even truly possibly to do so,
Branden> and if so, what would constitute reneging.
veeery clinotesque. This rates right there with `it dependes
on what the meaning of the word is is'.
Branden> Debian is a somewhat well defined group of individuals, and
Branden> therefore we can each be considered signators to the social
Branden> contract. But who has signed for the free software
Quite frankly, sir, this line of doublespeak and solipsim
disgusts me. You may well chose for us to renege on our word, but
word play and sophistry shall not change the fact that we are, in
this GR, going against the social contract, and reneging on the word
we gave, It matter little to me that the word we gave is inadmissible
in a court of law.
"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." Winston
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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