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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:15:21AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:49:43PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> >> However, I still think that it was only editorial changes, that the
> >> GFDL'ed stuff was non-free even before this GR, and that it was
> >> considered non-critical for sarge despite of this.

> I never said you or anybody "willfully violate the social
> contract". 

No, you didn't. What you did say wasn't really relevant though -- the
DFSG didn't change, so it's trivially true that everything that was
non-free before the GR is also non-free after.

The relevant question is whether distributing anything violated the
social contract after the GR that didn't before -- since the SC was the
only thing that changed, its application to actions is the only thing
that could change.

You're claiming that the stuff didn't change, and that "it was considered
non-critical for sarge despite of this". That's not the case -- it was
considered non-critical because this was considered to *not be the case*.
Add "by me" to both clauses, if you like. That you're claiming the
opposite really can be interpreted in only one way: that you thought
that I was deliberately violating the social contract.

I'm not saying that you were deliberately trying to make this claim,
but it's the only possible logical conclusion from your statement;
and it happens to be wrong. 

Given the unhappiness that seems to be going around, it would probably
be a good idea for various folks to start making a deliberate effort
to consider the logical conclusions and consequences of the positions
they take.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law
http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: