On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:53:09 AM AEDT Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 February 2020 9:25:29 AM AEDT intrigeri wrote:
> > I'd love if you would use wording less morally/emotionally loaded than
> > "excuse" here: for me at least, "excuse" is bound to the thought
> > framework of guilt, accusation, and absolute right vs. absolute wrong.
> > Framing the discussion this way can easily lead folks to react in
> > a defensive, non-constructive way.
> >
> > Maybe, instead, you meant something like "what reason is there to do
> > X?", or "why do you think this trade-off is the current best
> > solution?" :)
>
> Valid, thanks. Though you could have lectured us both on the tone we have
> used as I was merely responding to rather aggressive reply.
On second thought, yes I would use "excuse" anyway precisely for its moral
implications and accusation of wrongdoing. In another community it would not
be obvious that DFSG compliance is a good thing. But here in Debian where we
all agree that DFSG is good, and compliance concerns should be default,
ideally. It should not be necessary to call for DFSG compliance. It should be
on abuser to explain that it was not possible to build a service in a fully
DFSG compliant manner only from components provided by Debian. I'm not saying
that DFSG compliance is optional (or that it doesn't matter) yet you are
bothered with _my_ tone. I'm much more troubled by attitude of not caring for
DFSG...
--
Best wishes,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the
experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination
to do so.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.