[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom



On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:33:12PM +0000, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
> <little.miry@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >2007/9/12, John Kelly <jak@isp2dial.com>:
> 
> >> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of
> >> users, then why not let users vote.  The outcome may be different if
> >> another vote was taken, with language specifically exempting RFCs from
> >> the DFSG.
> 
> >This is pure demagogy [1] and adds nothing productive to the debate
> >apart from trying to be a provocation.
> 
> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit
> of users, then why not let users vote?
> 
> Or are you just a crowd of hypocrites?

  We care about users that are offline and need to read RFC's:

$ apt-cache search RFC|grep doc-rfc
doc-rfc - Migration Pseudo-Package
doc-rfc-0001-0999 - Other RFCs
doc-rfc-1000-1999 - Other RFCs
doc-rfc-2000-2999 - Other RFCs
doc-rfc-3000-3999 - Other RFCs
doc-rfc-experimental - Experimental RFCs
doc-rfc-fyi-bcp - FYI and BCP RFCs
doc-rfc-misc - Miscellaneous RFCs
doc-rfc-old-std - Old Standard RFCs
doc-rfc-std - Standard RFCs
doc-rfc-std-proposed - Proposed Standard RFCs

  We don't see the point to bend our ideals for obnoxious or invalid
reasons (having RFCs in the source package is completely useless to the
user in the first place). So can you now stop, or at least bring valid
arguments ?

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpCA2UyviCAF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: