Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:36:46AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> >> > as "grandfather resolutions" as described, and, by explicitly removing
> >> > the Social Contract's requirement to have DFSG-free documentation and
> >> > firmware for sarge/some-period-of-time/whatever, go back to allowing
> >> > discretion on the part of those who would ordinarily be responsible for
> >> > release issues and DFSG control.
> >>
> >> You're implying here that those things were allowed under a valid
> >> interpretation of the original SC.
> >
> > You're implying here that there's only one possible "valid"
> > interpretation of the original SC.
>
> The probably with that interpretation, as has been pointed out
> previously, is that there is a lot of gray area.
And that's unthinkable since we're building an operating system that's
used in a perfect world that has zero tolerance towards gray areas.
Oh, wait...
IOW, who the fuck cares? :) We're not harming our cause or our users
by allowing the ftpmaster guys (who listen to the debian-legal guys)
to occasionally use their judgement when it comes to deciding whether
to allow something or not.
So there's now an option in the license of texinfo docs that would allow
their copyright holders to spread vile anti-man(7) propaganda as part of
the docs and force everyone else to do so too. That's a problematic option,
but given that nobody's actually doing any such thing, is it problematic
enough to kick out the whole thing? I really am not convinced.
(Ignoring the DRM issue for the sake of the analogy.)
> Now that we have a clear SC, we can figure out where to go from here.
Yeah, and lament the said fact and the process used to make it happen.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: