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

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

> Whatever.  If fiat is legitimate, that is.  I'm not sure what your point
> is.  A rose is a rose is a rose.  DFSG 3 contains absolutely no
> implication of the existence of any exception to its terms.

You steadfastly want to skip that little word "software".  It's the
Debian free *software* guidelines, and if your goal is to be
literalistic, then you can't appeal to the DF *Software* G to argue
about things which are not *Software*.

> > That doesn't make any sense at all. If you want to say "Auxiliary
> > material to the license must be fairly small", that's fine, but making
> > up a byte size, and then going on with other strange controtions is
> > just nuts. These are *guidelines* remember. Most people are still able
> > to tell the difference between "big" and "small".
> Let me guess.  You're one of the people who didn't read the thread
> before replying!

Huh?  You and I still disagree about the point; if you *must* have a
rigid guideline, then maybe we can work one out, but Anthony is well
within his rights to argue that a qualitative description is
adequate.  That question is *not* somehow closed so that people
joining the conversation now can't revisit it.

> It's probably a good idea to avoid shitting on people for making an
> effort to be clear by using a little colloquial grease.  Specific
> suggestions for clarification of my existing wording are welcome.
> Contrived objections to my proposals are not.

Why are contrived objections to your proposals not allowed, but
contrived objections to the GFDL are just fine??

Reply to: