Re: For those who care about the GR
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:48:05 +0100 (CET), Thijs Kinkhorst <email@example.com> said:
> On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer body
>> can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
>> seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).
> Could you please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that an
> interpretation of guidelines can be seen as a fact?
If you do not see closed source software as incontrovertibly
non-free, I have no desire to discuss this issue with you.
> This is not exact science, even though you link it to the value of
> pi. In judicial systems one can dispute an interpretation of the law
> at a court, because the law is seen as something that is subject to
Even inexact sciences have things accepted
axiomatically. Under some (extreme) viewpoints, there are no facts
(you, sir, are a figment of my imagination, as is the universe).
> This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict
> set of rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are
> subject to interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what
> distinguishes them from rules. Therefore, I think a specific
> application of guidelines can not be seen as a fact.
This is not a metaphysical or existential debate. If you are
of the opinion that everything about licensing is a matter of
opinion, and every opinion counts, I must beg to differ. If opinions
are scattered on an issue like a bell curve, I am not interested in
the long tails --- and I am trying to determine how far off the mean
ad along the tail my own opinion lies.
Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C