Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
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.
True.
> 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.
I see.
Obviously, the correct conclusion is that you stuck to an indefensible
belief despite many people attempting to explain to you why you were wrong,
and that your irrationality, which bears all the signs of hypocrisy, led
Debian to this juncture.
> 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.
Like *you*, for instance? Geez, if you'd actually done that a long time
ago, this discussion would not be happening now.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: