Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The current context is "what is the definition of the phrase 'source
> > code'?" -- and we take definitions wherever we find them.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:18:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sure, but we shouldn't assume that any particular definition is the
> one we should use just because someone says so. We should look at the
> consequences of such a decision.
> Indeed, we already have a process: we work things out, case by case,
> relying on the good sense of people involved, and the general
> consensus of the folks on debian-legal.
All of which is completely irrelevant to the question of "what
definition(s) are we using for 'source code'".
We use words to communicate.
We do not, after the fact, try and decide what the words meant that we
used to communicate.
If we had to wait for debian-legal to propose what definitions would be
used in comprehending the language of the social contract before we could
discuss an issue it would be utterly impossible for us to understand
But maybe you think that would be a good thing?