Re: Why the GR is not necessary
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:33:49PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 03:21:39AM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please don't take this as a compromise, because I'm not compromising.
> >
> > I'm suggesting we do this in -addition- to the GR.
> >
> > (remember my position: I do not agree to any reference to non-free in
> > the social contract. none at all.)
>
> you are at complete liberty to hold whatever stupid and/or insane position
> you like.
>
> don't expect anyone else to agree with you. most people will just think
> you're a fucking nutcase...not their fault, really, if you go around
> representing yourself as one.
(Why do I get involved?)
Unless, you've spoken to 'most people', then you can hardly
expect to know whether or not they think Jim is a nutcase. Or indeed,
a fucking nutcase. I know I don't. I think that Jim's position (that
the social contract should not mention non-free) is perfectly tenable
(I believe I understand the reasoning behind it; Jim thinks Debian is
about free software).
Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with him. It's easy to find a
position tenable, but in the end disagree with it.
This is a really important debate (it should be in -project,
though!). We are trying to work out if our priorities are our users,
or free software. (Given that the social contract says both!). Let's
concentrate on the issues, and try to arrive at a sensible decision.
Without calling each other fucking nutcases.
--
Jules Bean | Any sufficiently advanced
jules@{debian.org,jellybean.co.uk} | technology is indistinguishable
jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | from a perl script
Reply to: