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

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:55:50PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 07:43:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > More important is the very first statement in our Social Contract:
> > "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".  I want you and everyone else
> > to understand that there are only two possible correct stances
> > regarding clause 1 of the Social Contract:
> yawn.  high-school level sophistry.  how tedious.

To which you have no actual rebuttal, save for that it's "tedious".  I also
remind you that you have yet to demonstrate even one material harm to our
users by removing non-free from future Debian archives.

You conveniently seem to leave that bit out of every message you quote.

> here's news for you: we're not as stupid as you think we are. 
> a lie by omission is still a lie.

See above.

> > > want to install and run non-free software is not sufficient reason
> > > to diminish utility for debian users.
> > 
> > I did not state that I find that offensive.
> you don't have to.  your zealous bigotry makes it obvious.

OK, then let me state for the record that I do NOT find it offensive, that I
myself use non-free software at work, and that I do not wish useful non-free
software, nor its users, to simply drop off the face of the earth.

Furthermore, I note that I myself maintain non-free packages for Debian that
would be effected by my proposed Resolution.  Also, that the non-free
software I use at work would be effected by my proposed Resolution.

One wonders where you derive this odd notion that I hate non-free software
and its users, when in fact I use and maintain that software for Debian.

> > I did not state that I want to diminish utility for Debian users.
> cause and effect doesn't require advance notice.
> your actions have effects whether you state them or not.

Perhaps you could indulge us by stating what these effects you contrinue to
ambiguously refer to are?

Reply to: