Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:34:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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.
WTF should i waste my time rebutting juvenile sophistry? it's not
worth the effort, only teenagers who haven't encountered it before are
likely to be taken in by such lameness and it's not going to change your
mind anyway.
> You conveniently seem to leave that bit out of every message you quote.
no, i didn't. i responded to your throwing the question back at me by
throwing it back at you again.
you're the one who wants to change something. the onus is on you to
demonstrate that it is necessary, that it does no harm and/or if it
does any harm that the benefit greatly outweighs the harm.
it isn't broke, don't fix it unless you can prove there's sufficient
justification for doing so.
the onus is on you.
> > > > 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.
you're either lying to me or lying to yourself. either way, i don't
believe you.
> 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.
and that justifies you screwing up non-free for everyone else? i don't
think so.
> 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.
oh, just little things like the fact that you want to completely fuck it
up for every debian user who wants to use non-free. nothing major.
> > > 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?
i'm not in the habit of wasting my time pointing out the bleeding
obvious to people who disingenuously pretend that their actions will
have no harmful effects.
if you really can't see what harm you would cause then you have no
business making such a harmful proposal. go do some research and
address the harm before proposing anything.
but i don't think you're actually that blind. it's far more likely that
it suits you to pretend not to know and to pretend that your proposal
will do no harm.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: