Re: Free bigot flame burning, time to think.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:08:02PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:41:02AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > I believe "Free and GNU are good, bigot of any kind is bad."
>
> Excuse me, but I have demonstrated more than once in this very discussion
> that I do not fit the definition of bigot. If there is any doubt in your
One of dictionary.com's definitions of bigot, to use one of Branden's
tactics:
"A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as
unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing
from them as unreasonable or wicked."
from Webster's revised unabridged dictionary.
Which part of this definition doesn't apply?
> > (5) We are not asking these non-free opposing people to maintain
> > package. So there is no resource issues.
>
> I don't understand this paragraph.
It says that developers who oppose non-free (such as yourself) are not
required to maintain non-free packages, so there is no resource issue.
> Then why to the opponents to non-free removal continue to trot out examples
> of "essential" bits of non-free software, even after the free alternatives
> have been developed for what was once "essential" non-free software?
Because they haven't been in all cases.
Perhaps we should be reviewing the non-free package list. Susan has
posted one which is suitable.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: