Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 06:02:43 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] c7d2fn$5be$1@sea.gmane.org>
- References: <1083083855.1604.29.camel@localhost> <20040427172026.GP16797@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20040429074915.GN20924@grep.be> <E1BJ7AP-0000jQ-1i@mid.downhill.at.eu.org> <20040429090624.GX2365@zewt.org> <87llkfoua3.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <1083265727.8393.195.camel@gargantubrain.dartmouth.edu> <87zn8uo6ov.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <1083349488.19017.466.camel@gargantubrain.dartmouth.edu> <87smelmgf5.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <20040430224146.GN2365@zewt.org> <[🔎] 1083399899.1969.146.camel@localhost>
Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-05-01 at 00:41, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> During the GFDL debates, I lost faith in the FSF with respect to
>> documentation: they appeared willing to compromise documentation freedom
>> readily, if they thought it would further "free programs". I found that
>> reprehensible.
>
> I can understand some gift not meeting your standards, but it goes
> much too far to characterize the giver of disappointing gift as
> 'reprehensible'.
>
>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if they, too, were trying to redefine
>> "software" to suit their needs.
>
> Ah, I see. What is reprehensible is the attempt at deceit! The FSF
> wants to manipulate how you use this word so that it can fool you into
> accepting its contaminated offerings! Evil!
Though I can't speak for Glenn, I think you get it. :-)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: