Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:41:55AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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 thought your interpretation was incorrect. That doesn't mean I
thought you were deliberately violating the social contract. You were
(I assume) acting based on your interpretation. Thus, based on the
interpretation you didn't knowingly violate the Social Contract. If
however, you didn't believe in your interpretation, then I'd say you
were 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.
How about the above reasoning?
Jamin W. Collins
Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo